DELAY DEFEATS EQUITY 

EQUITY AIDS THE VIGILANT,NOT THE INDOLENT

ABSTRACT

Vigilantibus non dormientibus aequitas subvenit is a Latin maxim that means equity aids the vigilant, not
the ones who sleep over their rights. It provides an equitable defense. When a person invokes defense
that the opponent had slept over his/her rights and have approached the court after a long delay, the
court checks into the reason for delay of the opponent in invoking his/her rights. Failure to assert one’s
rights in a timely manner can result in a claim's being barred by laches. Laches is a form of estoppel for
delay. The burden of putting the defense of laches is on the person who is responding to the claims to
which it applies. Laches alleges prejudicial delay and unfairness in the context of a particular situation.

AIM

To Recognize that an adversary can lose evidence, witnesses, and a fair chance to defend himself or 
herself afterthe passage of time from the date that the wrong was committed.

1. To encourages a speedy resolution for every dispute
2. To  defense  various forms of equitable relief

INTRODUCTION:
If there is an unreasonable delay in bringing proceedings the case may be disallowed in equity.
Acquiescence is where one party breaches another's rights and that party doesn't take an action against
them they may not be allowed to pursue this claim at a later stage. These may be used as defenses in
relation to equity cases. For a defence of laches courts must decide whether the plaintiff has delayed
unreasonably in bringing forth their claim and the defence of acquiescence can be used if the actions of
the defendant suggest that they are not going ahead with the claim so it is reasonable for the other
party to assume that there is no claim.

MEANING:
A Latin term in this regard is “Vigilantibus, non dormentibus, jura subvenient.” which means “Equity aids
the vigilant and not the indolent”. So, if one sleeps on his rights, his rights will slip away from him. Legal
claims are barred by statutes of limitation and equitable claims may be barred not only by limitation law
but also by unreasonable delay, called laches.

APPLICATION:
To cases which are governed by statutes of limitation either expressly or by analogy the maxim will not
apply. Such cases fall into three categories-
i) Those equitable claims to which the statute applies expressly.
ii) to which the statute applies by analogy.
iii) Equitable claims which are covered by ordinary rules of laches.
    Express Application of the statute.  Originally the statute applied only to courts of common law.  but
then several statutory provisions were enacted which were in terms applicable to equitable
claims.  Thus the Real Property equity must be brought within the same time as if it were a legal claim,
and the Trustee Act 1888 limited the time within which an action must be replaced by the Limitation
Act.  The principal equitable claims so regulated are as follows:

(i)                 Claim by cestuis que trust to recover trust property or in respect of any breach of trust;

(ii)               Claims to the personal estate of a deceased person;

(iii)             Claims to redeem mortgaged land.

(iv)             Claim to foreclose mortgages of real or personal property.

(b)   Application of the statute by analogy:  where a claim is not expressly covered by any statutory
period but is closely analogous to a claim which is expressly covered, equity will act by analogy and apply
the same period.  This is so not only where equity, exercising a concurrent jurisdiction, gives the same
relief as was available in a court of law and to which there is a limitation period prescribed; it applies
also where equity affords wider relief than available to a claim for damages for fraud or fraudulent
breach of contract is applicable by analogy to a claim to account as constructive trustee.

(c)    Claims outside statute.  The principles which equity applies to cases not covered by a statutory
period have been stated thus:

“Now the doctrine of laches in courts of equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine.  Where it
would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has by his conduct, done that
which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he
has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation in which it would not
be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases lapse
of time and delay are most material.”

DOCTRINE OF LACHES:
Delay which is sufficient to prevent a party from exercising its rights and obtaining relief from court of
law is called laches. Laches is more than mere delay, and instead implies neglect to do what ought to
have been done. Thus, the maxim means that a party who delays in enforcing rights will not be able to
seek equitable relief.

EXAMPLE: 
The plaintiff allowed his land to be occupied by the defendant and this was acquiesced by him even
beyond the period of limitation. On a suit of the land it was decided that as the period of limitation to
recover possession had expired, no relief could be granted.
DELAY WHEN FATAL:
In the following cases delay is fatal for a party desirous of enforcing his rights;
1-LOSS OF EVIDENCE:
As a result of delay when the available
evidence is lost or destroyed.
2-WAIVER OF RIGHT:
When the other party is induced to
assume or draw an inference from
one,s conduct that one has waived his rights.
3-RELEASE OF RIGHT:
Delay provides a ground to 
the other party and leads him to believe that
one has agreed to abandon and release his right
4-LOSS OF WITNESS:
Loss of witnesses could be occurred in
case of death.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE MAXIM :

Following are the exceptions to the
maxim :
1-Where the law of
limitation expressly applies.
2-Where it apply by analogy, and
3-Where the law of limitation does not
apply but the cases are governed by
ordinary rules of latches.

LIMITATION:
This maxim does not apply when-
i) where the law of limitation expressly applies
ii) where it applies by analogy, and
iii) where the law of limitation does not apply but the cases are governed by ordinary rules of laches.

RECOGNITION:
The English doctrine of delay and laches showing negligence in seeking relief in a court of equity can not
be imported in view of Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which fixes a period of one year
(previously three years) within which a suit for specific performance should be brought.
Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act embodies this doctrine but with a difference.

RECOGNITION IN PAKISTAN : 
It has
very limited scope in the presence of
limitation act 1939
REFERENCES:

Coca-Cola v Busch, 44 F. Supp. 405 (Justice Ganey, District Court, Pennsylvania, 1945, NOTE 1)

Cox v Morgan (1801) 1 Bos. & Pull. 412

Dalton v Dalton 2006 BCCA 390

Duhaime, Lloyd, Legal Definition of Due Diligence

R v Mehta 2007 ONCJ 305

 Chief Young Dede v. African Association Ltd (1910) 1 N.L.R 130 at 13