EQUITABLE DEFENCES IN MODERN JURISPRUDENCE: APPRAISING THEIR NORMATIVE STATUS AND PRACTICAL APPLICATION

This paper examines the nuanced role of equitable defences, particularly laches and acquiescence, within the merged legal framework of law and equity. The historical merger has led to ambiguities surrounding the normative status and practical application of these defences, raising questions about their classification: are they true defences or merely guiding principles within the legal system? By analysing these defences, especially their interaction with statutes of limitations, this paper investigates how equitable doctrines operate, focusing on their discretionary nature and the flexibility they offer courts in balancing fairness and justice. Equitable defences, rooted in the maxims of equity, traditionally sought to counterbalance the rigidity of common law by considering fairness-based factors. This work critically appraises whether equitable defences should be treated as substantive legal defences or remain principles that guide judicial discretion. It also addresses the ongoing scholarly debate regarding their function in private law, emphasising the courts' role in defining the circumstances under which these defences apply without statutory guidance. The paper ultimately argues that while the merger has afforded courts greater flexibility, it has also left equitable defences in a state of conceptual ambiguity, underscoring the need for clearer judicial principles to guide their application in modern legal practice.