Equitable Doctrines

 An equitable doctrine is a rule a rule or precedent established by law

 They ae basically a set of rules which are said to govern the way in which equity operates
hence illustrating the unique qualities of equity
 The courts applied the doctrines and the maxims interchangeably to remedy situations.

THE DOCTRINE OF CONVERSION

 In the 18th century there was a lot of unfairness going on that allowed trustees to
prejudicially affect the interest of the beneficiaries by postponing the sale or purchases of
land .
 so this doctrine was basically brought into existence by the courts of chancery to assist
the owner of the subject matter (in this case land or property) for instance to distribute the
property in accordance to his presumed intention.
 this doctrine is normally illustrated or was applied in trust matters that involved the sale
of land to devolve it as if it were money or as if it were land.
 in this case where there was a trust deed/ will with the expression that property had to be
converted. The conversion was then to be effective as at the date of the instrument
expressing the intention.
 In a will or trust, the testator may direct that their real estate be sold and the proceeds
divided among the beneficiaries. Although the property has not yet been sold, equity will
treat the land as if it is already personal property (money) for the purposes of determining
the rights of the beneficiaries.
 the doctrine was mostly applied when someone was under an obligation to have carried
out a certain act and there is someone who can compel the performance of such
obligation.
Fletcher v Ashburner (1779) 1 Bro CC 497
is a classic case in equity law, specifically dealing with the distinction between legal and
equitable principles concerning the conversion of property from real estate (land) to personalty
(money), which is referred to as the doctrine of conversion.
Key Facts:
 The case involved a testator who left instructions in his will for his real property (land) to
be sold after his death, and the proceeds of the sale were to be divided among his
beneficiaries.

1
  The central issue was whether the land should be treated as real estate or personal
property during the process of executing the will.
Legal Issue:
 Conversion: The issue was whether the land, once directed to be sold in the will, had
been "converted" into personalty (money), even before the sale had taken place.
Legal Principle (The Doctrine of Conversion):
In this case, the court applied the equitable doctrine of conversion, which states:
 "Money directed to be turned into land, and land directed to be turned into money,
are to be considered as that species of property into which they are directed to be
converted."
In simpler terms:
 If the land is directed to be sold and turned into money, it is treated as personal property
(money) from the moment the direction to sell is given, even if the sale hasn't happened
yet.
 If money is directed to be used to purchase land, it is treated as real property (land) from
the moment the direction is given.
Court's Decision:
The court held that since the testator's will had directed the land to be sold and the proceeds
distributed as money, the land was to be considered personal property (money) in equity, even
though it had not yet been sold.
Significance:
 The case established an important principle in equity and trust law regarding how
property should be treated when there is an obligation to convert it from one form to
another. It reflects the flexible nature of equity, which looks at the intent behind the
actions rather than rigid legal categories.
 The doctrine of conversion is relevant in areas of trust law, wills, and estate planning,
as it determines how property should be treated for various legal purposes, such as
inheritance, taxation, or the rights of beneficiaries.
The case is often cited in relation to the equitable maxim that "equity looks on that as done
which ought to be done," meaning that in equity, things are treated as if they have already been
accomplished when there is an obligation to perform them
Limitations of the Doctrine of Conversion:
 The doctrine may not apply if the direction to convert property is revoked or varied by
the person giving the direction (such as the testator in a will).

2
  Courts may decide that the property should remain in its original form if circumstances
change or if it would be inequitable to enforce the conversion.
Conclusion:
The equitable doctrine of conversion ensures that property is treated in the way that the parties
intended or directed, even if the actual conversion has not yet occurred. This doctrine plays a
critical role in determining the rights of beneficiaries under wills and trusts, as well as in
contracts where property is to be converted from one form to another. By applying the maxim
"equity looks on that as done which ought to be done," the doctrine allows courts to ensure
fairness in handling the transformation of property.

THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION

Now this one applies in relation to wills mostly, and the testator has made a mistake. For
instance, where a Testator(A) attempts to device (bequeath) land via a will to (B), but this land
actually belonged to (C) and A, but in the same will A Gives C $1000
What Would C Then Do?
C is in a position to either
1. Transfer the land to B and receive the $1000
2. keep his land and compensate B the value of the land should he choose to also keep the
$1000.
Hence the phrase a person may not take a benefit and reject the associated burden, or choose
parts of a single transaction.

In Re Recher's Will Trusts, a testator left part of their estate to an unincorporated association (a
club). There was a legal question about whether this gift could be validly left to the association,
as unincorporated associations have no legal personality and thus cannot hold property in the
same way individuals or companies can.
Legal Issue:
The key issue in this case was whether the doctrine of cy-près (to modify a charitable trust) or
the doctrine of election should apply. The doctrine of election came into play because the
testator was trying to give away property in a way that was inconsistent with legal ownership.
The court had to decide whether the club members could "elect" to take the gift or whether the
gift was void.

Decision:

3
In Re Recher’s Will Trusts, the court held that the gift to the unincorporated association was
not a valid charitable trust because the association could not hold property. However, the
members of the association were able to take the gift as part of the association's general funds
under a contractual analysis (i.e., as part of their membership). The doctrine of election was
considered because it addressed the situation where a testator tries to dispose of property
belonging to someone else, potentially requiring the person to elect.
Relevance to Doctrine of Election:
Re Recher’s Will Trusts clarifies that the doctrine of election may apply when beneficiaries
under a will are put in a position where they must choose between keeping their own property or
accepting a benefit under the will. It highlights the importance of understanding the relationship
between a testator’s intentions and the legal ownership of property in determining whether an
election is required.
Streatfield v Streatfield (1735): One of the foundational cases on the doctrine of election. In
this case, a person was given a benefit under a will, but the will also attempted to dispose of
property that belonged to them. The court held that they must elect either to keep their property
or to take the benefit under the will.

Codrington v Codrington (1875): A case emphasizing that the election doctrine requires a
person to choose between inconsistent benefits provided under a legal instrument.
These cases demonstrate how the doctrine of election operates to ensure that beneficiaries
cannot "double dip" by both keeping their own property and taking a benefit under a will that
purports to dispose of it.

The Doctrine of Satisfaction

where a person is under the obligation to do something but does another, the doing of that other
thing may be held to satisfy that legal obligation.
For example :
A owes B $2000.A dies and the debt remains outstanding, however A left a will and in his will
he left B $2000.
A therefore intended to satisfy his obligation ( to pay the debt ) towards B thus the $2000 left in
A’s will I intended to relinquish A’s debt towards B.
what will happen is that B must give up his claim to the debt if he wishes to take up the legacy
left by A

4
Talbot v Duke of Shrewsbury (1714)
Facts:
In this case, a father made a provision for his son in his will, bequeathing him a certain sum of
money. However, before his death, the father gave his son a substantial sum of money while still
alive. After the father’s death, the question arose as to whether the sum given during the father’s
lifetime was intended to be in satisfaction of the legacy in the will, or whether the son could
claim both the lifetime gift and the legacy.
Legal Principle:
The court established that, where a testator makes a gift during their lifetime that is similar in
nature to a legacy left in the will, there is a presumption of satisfaction. This presumption
means that the lifetime gift is deemed to be a substitution for (or satisfaction of) the legacy
unless there is evidence showing a contrary intention.
 Presumption of Satisfaction: When a legacy and a lifetime gift are similar, the law
presumes that the gift was intended to satisfy the legacy unless the will or other evidence
indicates that both were intended to be given.
Decision:
The court found that the money given during the father’s lifetime was intended to satisfy the
legacy in the will. The son could not claim both the gift and the legacy, as the presumption of
satisfaction applied in this case.
Other Cases Related to the Doctrine of Satisfaction:
Ex parte Pye (1811): This case involved a testator who made a provision for his child in his
will, but later gave the child a similar sum during his lifetime. The court held that the lifetime
gift was in satisfaction of the testamentary legacy.

Application of the Doctrine of Satisfaction in Kenya

Succession Law:
The doctrine of satisfaction is relevant under Kenya’s Law of Succession Act (Cap 160),
particularly when dealing with wills and legacies. The courts in Kenya would apply the doctrine
to determine whether gifts made during the lifetime of a deceased person are intended to
substitute for legacies made in a will.
 Section 31 of the Law of Succession Act could intersect with the doctrine when
addressing gifts made in contemplation of death (donatio mortis causa). These gifts may
trigger the presumption of satisfaction if they appear to be a substitute for a legacy in the
will.

5
For example, if a parent bequeaths a sum of money to a child in their will and then provides a
similar sum during their lifetime, the doctrine of satisfaction would likely apply to presume that
the lifetime gift was meant to satisfy the testamentary legacy, unless the parent’s intentions
clearly indicated otherwise.
Let’s consider a hypothetical case:
 A Kenyan father bequeaths Ksh 5 million to his son in a will. However, before his death,
he gifts Ksh 3 million to his son to help with business investments.
 Upon the father's death, the son claims both the Ksh 5 million legacy and keeps the Ksh 3
million gift.
Under the doctrine of satisfaction, the court might presume that the Ksh 3 million gift was
meant to partially satisfy the Ksh 5 million legacy. Thus, the son could be entitled to claim only
the remaining Ksh 2 million from the father’s estate unless there is evidence showing that the
father intended the Ksh 3 million to be a separate gift.
Challenges in Applying the Doctrine of Satisfaction in Kenya:
1. Lack of Explicit Codification: The doctrine is not expressly codified in Kenyan statutes
such as the Law of Succession Act, so its application relies heavily on judicial
interpretation and precedent from English law.
2. Need for Clear Evidence of Intention: Kenyan courts would need clear evidence of the
deceased’s intention to determine whether a gift was meant to satisfy a legacy or debt.
This can be a challenge in practice when the intentions of the deceased are ambiguous or
not documented.

The Doctrine Laches

Laches is a doctrine in equity whereby courts can deny relief to a claimant with an otherwise
valid claim when the party bringing the claim unreasonably delayed asserting the claim to the
detriment of the opposing party. The doctrine is also commonly referred to as estoppel by
laches.
Importantly, laches does not apply merely due to the passage of time before bringing a legal
claim. The justification for the doctrine is that the delay was unreasonable on the part of the
plaintiff, and the changed conditions due to the delay render granting the relief sought
inequitable. If the delay on the plaintiff’s part can be satisfactorily explained by some reason like
lack of information, the delay may be excused.
The party asserting laches has the burden of proving that it is applicable. Laches is
distinguishable from the statute of limitation, which prevents a party from asserting claims after
the designated limitations period has expired.
Lindsay Petroleum Co. v Hurd (1874) LR 5 PC 221

6
This is one of the foundational cases on the doctrine of laches. The court explained that laches
involves an unreasonable delay in enforcing a legal right, which causes prejudice to the other
party. The court stated:
 "The doctrine of laches is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be
practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the defendant has been misled by the
plaintiff’s conduct or because of some change in the defendant’s position, the claim will
be barred."
Allcard v Skinner (1887) 36 Ch D 145
In this case, the plaintiff sought to recover gifts made under undue influence. However, she
delayed in asserting her claim for several years. The court held that the claim was barred by
laches due to her delay in acting upon the undue influence, stating that the equitable right was
lost due to the unreasonable delay.
Fry v Lane (1888) 40 Ch D 312
This case dealt with the principle of laches where a disadvantaged party, who had sold property
under an unfair bargain, delayed in making a claim to set aside the sale. The court found that the
delay had been unreasonable and as a result, the claim was barred under the doctrine of laches.
Ratnam v Cumarasamy [1964] 3 All ER 933
This case involved a dispute about a lease. The claimant delayed for many years in seeking to
challenge the validity of certain legal actions. The court applied the doctrine of laches and barred
the claim because the delay had caused prejudice to the defendant.
Re Pauling’s Settlement Trusts [1964] Ch 303
In this case, a claim to recover trust property was barred by laches due to the trustees' delay in
enforcing their rights. The court emphasized that laches focuses not just on the passage of time,
but on whether the delay had caused any detriment or prejudice to the defendant.
Maritime Electric Co Ltd v General Dairies Ltd [1937] AC 610
This case demonstrated that laches could apply even where there was no fixed statutory
limitation. The court barred the claim on the basis that the plaintiff’s delay was unreasonable and
had adversely affected the defendant’s position.
Nairobi City Council v Thabiti Enterprises Ltd [1995] eKLR (Kenya)
In this Kenyan case, the court applied the doctrine of laches to dismiss a claim due to the
inordinate delay in enforcing rights. The plaintiff’s failure to take action over several years
meant that the claim was no longer equitable to pursue.

CLASS DISCUSSION QUESTION

7
Mary, a wealthy property owner, made a will in 2018, leaving her estate to various beneficiaries.
She devised a piece of land to her nephew, John, but also made a contradictory provision,
leaving that same land to a trust for the benefit of her daughter, Jane. Additionally, in the will,
she left John a significant sum of money. Before her death in 2023, Mary sold part of the land
and reinvested the proceeds into shares. However, Mary passed away before amending her will.
John claims the land left to him, but Jane argues that the land forms part of the trust created for
her benefit. Meanwhile, the executor of the estate suggests that John should receive the money
left to him under the will, while Jane takes the land under the trust.
Problem:
1. Apply the doctrine of conversion to determine whether the land in question remains part
of the estate or has been converted into shares, and if John is entitled to claim either the
land or its proceeds.
2. Using the doctrine of election, analyze whether John must elect between taking the land
and forgoing the money or accepting the money and relinquishing any claim to the land.
What are the consequences if John chooses not to elect?
Provide your reasoning by referencing both doctrines and discuss any equitable principles that
may apply in this scenario

Give Reasons for the Following

 Does the doctrine of conversion treat property as though it has already been changed into
its intended form under the will?
Answer: Yes.

 Can a beneficiary claim both inconsistent gifts under the doctrine of election?
Answer: No.

 Does the doctrine of election require a beneficiary to choose between two conflicting
gifts in a will?
Answer: Yes.

8
 If property is sold before the testator's death, does the doctrine of conversion
automatically apply to substitute the proceeds for the property?
Answer: Yes.

 Can the court make an election on behalf of a beneficiary if they refuse to choose?
Answer: Yes.

 Under the doctrine of election, can a beneficiary take the property and the money if the
will leaves them both?
Answer: No.

 Does the doctrine of conversion only apply when a will specifies how the property should
be converted?
Answer: Yes.

 If a beneficiary elect to take one gift, do they have to forfeit any claim to the other
inconsistent gift?
Answer: Yes.

 Does the doctrine of election only apply when there is no conflict between gifts in a will?
Answer: No.

 Is the doctrine of conversion an equitable doctrine?

 Answer: Yes.