Equity is an ancient judicial system originating in England by which courts apply principles of general

fairness in situations where application of the common law would bring about injustice.

Maxims of equity are legal maxims that serve as a set of general principles or rules which are said to
govern the way in which equity operates. They were developed by the English Court of Chancery and
other courts that administer equity jurisdiction. There are numerous maxims of equity.

However, 12 of these maxims are highly recognized and generally acceptable maxims. They include;

1. Equity would not suffer a wrong to be done without a remedy.

2. Equity follows the law.

3. He who seeks equity must do equity

4. He who comes into equity must come with clean hands.

5. Delay defeats equalities or equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent.

6. Equality is equity.

7. EQUITY LOOKS INTO THE INTENT RATHER THAN THE FORM.

8. EQUITY LOOKS ON THAT AS DONE WHICH OUGHT TO BE DONE.

9. Equity imputes an intention to fulfill an obligation.

10. Where there is equal equity, the law shall prevail.

11. Where the equities are equal, the first in time shall prevail.

12. Equity acts in personam.

For the purpose of this question, we would be focusing on these two maxims;

- [ ] EQUITY LOOKS INTO THE INTENT RATHER THAN THE FORM.

- [ ] EQUITY LOOKS ON THAT AS DONE WHICH OUGHT TO BE DONE.

EQUITY LOOKS INTO THE INTENT RATHER THAN THE FORM.

This maxim of equity demonstrates how equity looks beyond just the ‘form’ of a contract to the actual
‘intent’ behind such agreement. This is in contrast to the more rigid common law which is satisfied with
the appearance of a transaction. This doctrine applies in cases like;

1. TIME CLAUSES: If the buyer fails to pay within the fixed period of time, at common law he is in breach
of contract. Whereas, equity would allow for a ‘reasonable time’ for payment.

At common law, time is of the essence in a contract. As a result, if a party to a contract does not perform
his obligation on time, the aggrieved party can sue for damages or breach of contract.

In equity, instead of suing for damages, one can sue for specific performance of the contract. This
ensures that the contract is still performed instead of it being totally terminated.

It should be noted that in the case of MUSTAPHA vs SCOA (1955) 21 NLR 69 the court stated that in
equity, time is of the essence in the following circumstances:

- [ ] When the parties expressly state that time is of the essence

- [ ] When the property in question is one that requires timeliness.

- [ ] When time is made of the essence by notice.

2. COVENANTS: Equity may treat a convenant as negative in substance, so as to enable an injunction to

be granted to restrain its breach as seen in the case of CATT V TOURLE (1869)

3. MORTGAGES: Equity allows a mortgagor to redeem his property after the redemption day has passed
unlike common law where the right to redemption of property would be lost.

4. DEEDS: Equity would not grant specific performance of a purely voluntary agreement even though it
is made by a deed. EQUITY WOULD NOT AID A VOLUNTEER as seen in JEFFERYS V JEFFERYS 1841.

EQUITY LOOKS ON THAT AS DONE WHICH OUGHT TO BE DONE.

This maxim of equity usually applies to cases involving specific performance. That is to say, if two parties
had a contract to perform a particular obligation, equity puts them in the position they would have been
in if the obligation had been performed.
In a situation where one of the parties was expected to fulfill a particular obligation but only made part
performance, equity regards it as though he has fully performed his obligation.

In doing so, it focuses more on the consequences that would normally follow from the fulfillment of that
obligation.

This doctrine is usually demonstrated in;

1. LEASE OR LEASE AGREEMENT.

In SAVAGE V SARROUGH ( 1937), the plaintiff and his siblings were owners of certain land and buildings.
The defendant obtained from the plaintiff’s brother a written agreement ,not under seal, for a lease of 5
years. The plaintiff claimed recovery of possession of the property. It was held that in equity, the lease
though not under seal, must be deemed to have been effectively granted and that for practical purposes
the parties were in the same position as if the lease were valid at law and that the claim for recovery of
possession therefore failed.

2. THE DOCTRINE OF CONVERSION.

If a trustee or other person is under a binding obligation to sell land and convert it into money or to
invest a sum of money, in the purchase of land, Equity regards that as done which ought to be done and
treats the property as being in its converted state from the time when the duty to convert arose.

The courts applied this maxim in the case of Dr N.A Iragunima vs Rivers State Housing and Property
Development Authority & Ors (2003) SCNJ 207. In this case, the government of Eastern Nigeria leased a
plot of land to Nwosu for seven years. Nwosu subsequently assigned the lease to Okoro. In 1973, Okoro
applied for a renewal of the lease for sixty years.

The government granted his application and he paid all the necessary fees required for this. However,
the government did not draw up a formal feed for execution of the lease. Okoro built a house on the
land which he subsequently sold to the plaintiff.

He executed a deed of assignment in favour of the plaintiff, applied to the government to formally
assign it and paid the consent fees required by the government.

The plaintiff paid the ground rents and all the required fees on the land till 1986 when she discovered
that the government resold the land to a third party as an abandoned property.

The plaintiff sued the government and the third party, requesting the court to declare that the sale to
this third party was null and void and that the property rightly belongs to her. She also requested
damages for trespass and sought an injunction preventing this third party and others from trespassing
on the land.
The defendants relied on the fact that no proper deed of assignment was drawn up between Okoro
(who sold the land to the plaintiff) and the state government. As such, they interpreted this to mean
that the land didn’t legally transfer to the plaintiff.

The trial court ruled in the plaintiff’s favour. Aggrieved, the 2nd defendant (third party) appealed to the
Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the plaintiff. The appellant then appealed to the
Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that the fact that there was no formal deed of assignment drawn up between
the State Government and Okoro doesn’t mean that the whole transaction is invalid.

In applying the principle of “equity takes as done, that which ought to be done” the court held that
Okoro had a valid equitable interest in the property and could validity transfer the property to the
plaintiff.

Equity refers to a system of justice that emphasizes fairness and impartiality, often supplementing the
rigidities of common law. It originated in the English legal system to address situations where strict
application of the law would lead to unjust outcomes. Equity prioritizes the intent behind a transaction
over its form. This principle emerged to address the rigidities of common law, which often focused solely
on the apparent facts of a case. Courts of equity seek to uncover the true intentions of the parties
involved, ensuring that justice is served even if it means deviating from established formalities. For
instance, in contract cases, equity may allow additional time for performance, reflecting a more flexible
approach that emphasizes fairness and substance over mere procedural adherence

Equity’s principle of prioritizing intent over form is illustrated in several landmark cases:

1. Parkin v Thorold (1852): This case established that if a contract’s terms are not
accurately recorded, equity allows for rectification based on the parties’ true intentions rather than the
literal wording of the contract.

2. Earl of Oxford’s Case (1615): The court emphasized that equity would impute an
intention to fulfill obligations, ensuring that parties are held to their genuine commitments rather than
being dismissed due to technicalities.

3. Nwosu v Rivers State Housing Authority (2003): Here, the court recognized that
equitable principles could prevail over rigid common law rules, allowing for a more just resolution based
on the actual circumstances and intentions of the parties involved.

These cases exemplify how equity seeks to achieve fairness by focusing on the underlying intentions
rather than strict adherence to formalities.

In summary, equity plays a crucial role in promoting justice by addressing the limitations of traditional
legal frameworks.
"Equity looks to the intent rather than to the form"

The maxim is a fundamental principle in equity jurisprudence. It suggests that equity focuses on the
substance and underlying purpose of a transaction or situation rather than its strict legal form. In legal
contexts, "form" refers to the strict adherence to rules, procedures, and technicalities. In contrast,
"intent" focuses on the underlying purpose, goal, or motivation behind a transaction, agreement, or
action.

Equity's emphasis on intent means that courts consider the substance and spirit of the law, rather than
just its literal interpretation. This approach prioritizes fairness, justice, and the parties' true intentions.

Examples:

1. *Contract Disputes*: A contract's written terms might be clear, but equity may consider whether the
parties' intentions were genuinely reflected in the agreement.

2. *Trusts*: Equity looks beyond the legal form of a trust to determine the settlor's true intentions
regarding asset distribution.

3. *Property Disputes*: In boundary disputes, equity may consider the historical usage and intentions of
the parties rather than solely relying on property deeds.

Significant Effects:

1. *Substance over Form*: Equity prioritizes the true intentions and substantial justice over rigid
adherence to legal formalities.

2. *Flexibility*: This approach allows for more nuanced and adaptable decision-making.

3. *Prevents Injustice*: It helps prevent injustices that might arise from strict formalism.
 It ensures fairness and adaptability in legal decisions, acknowledging that rigid formalism can
sometimes lead to unjust outcomes.

"Equity looks not on that which has been done, but on that which ought to have been done."

This maxim emphasizes that equity focuses on what should have happened, rather than solely on what
actually occurred. Equity seeks to correct injustices and ensure fairness, even if the strict letter of the
law has been followed.

_Implications:_

1. _Rectifying mistakes_: Equity can intervene when mistakes or oversights have led to unjust outcomes.

2. _Unconscionable conduct_: Equity considers whether actions, though legally valid, are morally
reprehensible.

3. _Substance over form_: Equity prioritizes the substance of a transaction over its legal form.

4. _Fairness and justice_: Equity aims to achieve a just result, even if the law's strict application would
lead to an unjust outcome.

_Examples:_

1. _Rescission of contracts_: Equity may rescind a contract if it was obtained through fraud, duress, or
undue influence.
2. _Rectification of documents_: Equity can correct errors in documents to reflect the parties' true
intentions.

3. _Relief from forfeiture_: Equity may grant relief when a party has forfeited rights due to technical
non-compliance.

This principle underscores equity's role in promoting fairness, justice, and morality in legal disputes.

Snell's Equity is a renowned English equity casebook written by Edmund Snell in 1648.

*Notable Cases:*

1. *The Case of the Duke of Norfolk* (1685): Established the rule that equity will not permit a person to
benefit from their own wrong.

2. *The Earl of Oxford's Case* (1615): Held that equity can rescind contracts obtained through fraud or
duress.

3. *The Case of the Trust* (1627): Clarified the concept of trusts and the duties of trustees.

4. *The Case of the Mortgage* (1637): Established the principle that equity will prioritize the substance
of a transaction over its legal form.

Snell's Equity remains a foundational text in equity jurisprudence, offering valuable insights into
historical principles and their continued relevance in modern law.