Equity

The law is settled that equity does not operate in vacuum.

It is against this same procedure he acquiesced in that the appellant is making so much fuss about. Equity follows the law and will not allow a party to approbate and reprobate on the same issue. Equity, acting in personam, will forbid anything that is unconscionable to do. Thus it restrains a party from insisting on a right he had waived. If by his conduct he had made another person to assume that he could act in the way he had acted, it would therefore be unconscionable for the same party to renege on his words and insist on his legal right as doing so will prejudice the party who had so acted.
I am aware that this Court in MENAKAYA v. MENAKAYA (2001) 9-10 SC 1; (2001) 16 NWLR (Pt. 738) 203 had stated that this specie of estoppel by conduct does not apply to statutory rights but only to personal rights.

The exercise of discretion is equitable and the function of equity is to supplement the law never to counteract or contradict the law.

It battles one to still find in a civilized society which cherishes equality between the sexes, a practice that disentitles a woman (wife in this matter) to inherit from her late husband's estate, simply because she had no male child from the husband, This practice, I dare say, is a direct challenge to God the Creator Who bestows male children only; female children only (as in this matter), or an amalgam of both males and females, to whom He likes. He also has the sole power to make one a barren. There is nothing virtually one can do if one finds oneself in any of the situations. To perpetuate such a practice as is claimed in this matter will appear anachronistic, discriminatory and unprogressive. It offends the rule of natural Justice, equity and good conscience. That practice must fade out and allow equity, equality, justice and fair play to reign in the society.