Maxims of Equity

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.

A party seeking an equitable relief before a Court must present enough materials upon which the Court can exercise its discretion in his favour. In ONYALI & ANOR. VS. OKPALA & ORS. (2000) LPELR 6820, AT 31-32, this Court held that: “It is the responsibility of an applicant to furnish the Court with all necessary and vital documents for the due consideration of his application.
If he defaults in this respect, he cannot complain if the application is refused.” Also, in RE: YAR’ADUA (2011) 17 NWLR PT. 1277) 567 AT 585, Muhammad, JSC held that:- “This Court has stated the law and even the practice in a number of decisions, that for a person to approach this Court or any other Court for that matter with an application which seeks the Court’s indulgence, such a person is duty bound to place sufficient materials before the Court in order to assist the Court exercise its discretion in his favour.
Such discretionary exercise must be found upon facts and circumstances presented to the Court from which a conclusion governed by law will have to be drawn.” See UDEORAH VS. NWAKONOBI (2000) 1 NWLR (PT. 640) 239 and FODE DRILLING (NIG) LTD VS. FABBY & ORS. (2017) LPELR 42822. PER LAMIDO, J.C.A.