THE EQUITABKE PARADOX- REIMAGINING THE TENSION BETWEEN EQUITY AND COMMON LAW

 

Image from Pexels by Katrin Bolovtsova 

Introduction - A Clash of Legal Philosophies

The tension between equity and common law is one of the oldest puzzles in legal philosophy. Equity was designed to soften the rigid edges of common law, but it often ends up clashing with the very system it’s meant to complement. Common law thrives on precedent and predictability, while equity brings flexibility and moral considerations into the mix. This creates a dynamic interplay that can lead to both justice and uncertainty. In this article, we will explore this tension through a speculative lens, using case studies to shed light on the problem and proposing a new way to think about the relationship between equity and common law. Instead of offering definitive answers, we will engage in thought experiments and arguments, inviting reader to consider how equity might act as a corrective mechanism within the common law system. The goal is to spark dialogue and exploration, not to prescribe a fixed solution.

The Problem - When Predictability Meets Fairness

At its heart, the conflict between equity and common law comes down to their different philosophical foundations. Common law is all about precedent, predictability, and applying legal rules systematically. Equity, on the other hand, is rooted in fairness, conscience, and achieving just outcomes for individual cases. While these goals aren’t inherently at odds, putting them into practice often creates friction. For example, in property law, common law might recognize the legal owner of a property, while equity could acknowledge a beneficial owner based on their contributions to the property’s value or upkeep. This duality often leads to disputes, as seen in Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, where the House of Lords struggled to divide property between unmarried cohabitants, balancing legal title against equitable claims.

This tension has deep historical roots. Equity emerged in England as a way to address the shortcomings of common law, with the Court of Chancery offering remedies like injunctions and specific performance that common law courts couldn’t provide. Over time, the fusion of law and equity, formalized in England by the Judicature Acts of 1873–1875 and adopted by jurisdictions like Kenya, has blurred the lines between the two without fully resolving their contradictions. Today, courts navigate a hybrid system, switching between rigid rules and flexible principles, often producing unpredictable results. This article argues that the solution isn’t to choose one system over the other but to rethink how they work together.

Case Study - Equity and Customary Law in Kenya

In Kenya, the tension between equity and common law is especially pronounced in land law, where English common law intersects with traditional customs. The Kenyan legal system, shaped by colonial history and the 2010 Constitution, inherits this tension. A good example is Ephraim v Pastory [1990] LRC (Const) 757, a case decided by the High Court of Tanzania, which shares legal roots with Kenya. The court dealt with a customary law that barred women from inheriting clan land. It invoked equitable principles of fairness and constitutional equality to override this rule. This decision highlights equity’s power to challenge entrenched norms, but it also shows the potential for conflict between different legal traditions, as the court had to balance customary rigidity with equitable flexibility.

This case illustrates a broader dilemma: how can legal systems balance consistency and predictability with fairness and justice in specific disputes? In Kenya, where the Land Act of 2012 governs formal titles alongside customary practices, this question is especially pressing. The following sections propose that reimagining equity’s role could offer a way forward, harmonizing these competing demands.

A Speculative Approach - Equity as a Corrective Mechanism

One way to tackle this problem is to rethink equity not as a separate system but as a corrective mechanism within the common law framework. This idea draws on the concept of legal pluralism, which recognizes that multiple legal traditions can coexist within a single system. Instead of seeing equity and common law as rivals, we can view equity as a tool for refining common law, like a sculptor’s chisel shaping a rough block of stone.

This approach reframes equity as an essential part of the legal system, checking the excesses of common law rigidity. It echoes Lord Denning’s advocacy for equity’s modern role, as outlined in The Discipline of Law (1979), but it hasn’t been fully explored in addressing contemporary challenges like those in Kenya. The next section puts this idea to the test through a structured thought experiment.

Thought Experiment - Equity as a Dynamic Framework

To illustrate this idea, let’s imagine a legal system where equity isn’t a separate body of law but a dynamic framework embedded within the common law. In this system, judges have the authority to apply equitable principles when the strict application of common law rules leads to clearly unfair outcomes. However, this authority is guided by clear rules to maintain the predictability that common law relies on.

The framework works in two steps. Step 1: Courts apply common law rules to determine the legal rights of the parties, following precedent and statutory requirements. Step 2: Courts decide whether equitable intervention is needed, using a three-part checklist: (a) evidence of significant unfairness (e.g., unconscionable behavior or disproportionate outcomes); (b) proportionality of the remedy (e.g., ensuring the solution matches the problem); and (c) alignment with established equitable principles (e.g., consistency with doctrines like estoppel or trusts). This structured approach integrates equity’s flexibility into common law’s rigidity without sacrificing coherence.

Let’s apply this to a hypothetical case in Kenyan land law, where customary and common law often clash. A couple co-owns a piece of land; the husband holds legal title under the Land Registration Act, 2012, reflecting common law principles of formal ownership, while the wife contributed 60% of the purchase price. Under Step 1, the court confirms the husband’s legal title based on the registered deed. Under Step 2, equitable factors - her financial contribution, their shared intent, and fairness - justify awarding her a 60% beneficial interest through a constructive trust, similar to the approach in Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, where Baroness Hale prioritized contributions over legal title ([66] – [69]). This preserves the common law baseline while correcting its unfairness.

Historical examples support this model. In Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) 21 Ch D 9, the English Court of Appeal dealt with a lease dispute where a tenant, lacking a formal deed required by common law, had paid rent under an equitable agreement. The court enforced the lease in equity through the doctrine of part performance, overriding common law formality (at 14–15). This decision shows how equity can refine legal outcomes without undermining the system, a principle that can be adapted to modern contexts like Kenya’s pluralistic legal system.

Critics might argue that this framework risks inconsistency, giving judges too much discretion to deviate from precedent. But three factors address this concern. First, the three-part checklist limits judicial discretion by requiring objective findings of unfairness and proportionality. Second, appellate oversight ensures consistency, as seen in Kenyan cases like Echaria v Echaria [2007] eKLR, which standardized equitable property divisions. Third, examples from U.S. trust law, such as Scott v Scott (255 F.2d 18 [2d Cir. 1958]), show that structured equitable discretion can coexist with predictable legal rules. Far from destabilizing the system, this approach strengthens its legitimacy by aligning outcomes with justice.

This thought experiment suggests a new way to think about equity: not as an external disruptor but as an internal corrective, balancing predictability and fairness. By embedding equity within common law through a structured process, it offers a practical way to resolve the paradox at the heart of this article, with implications for both theory and practice in pluralistic legal systems.

A Fresh Perspective on an Old Problem

Is this framework truly new? The integration of equity and common law isn’t unprecedented. Scholars like F.W. Maitland (Equity, 1909) and jurists like Lord Denning have long explored their relationship, and recent developments in Kenya show equity’s corrective role in specific areas. For example, in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic (2017), the Supreme Court of Kenya ruled that the mandatory death penalty was unconstitutional, emphasizing judicial discretion and individualized sentencing to soften the harshness of rigid common law rules. Similarly, Kenya’s Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2023 formalize equity’s role by requiring courts to consider mitigating factors and allowing sentence reductions for early guilty pleas, ensuring fairness and proportionality.

While these examples show equity’s ability to temper common law rigidity, they are mostly limited to criminal sentencing. This article suggests extending this approach to other areas of law, such as property, contracts, and human rights, where the tension between equity and common law remains unresolved. By harmonizing consistency and fairness through clear guidelines, the proposed framework offers a systematic way to integrate equity’s corrective function across different legal fields. This reframes an old problem for modern times, advocating for a more cohesive integration of equity within the common law tradition.

Conclusion - Toward a Harmonized Legal System

The tension between equity and common law isn’t going away, nor should it. Their interplay reflects the ongoing challenge of balancing consistency with fairness: a challenge that lies at the heart of legal philosophy and practice. This article has proposed a new way to think about this tension by reimagining equity as a corrective mechanism within the common law system. Instead of treating equity as a separate and often conflicting body of law, the framework embeds equitable principles within the common law through a structured, two-step process. This approach preserves the predictability of common law while allowing for the flexibility and moral considerations that equity brings to individual cases.

The practical implications of this framework are significant. By providing clear guidelines for when and how equitable principles should be applied - through a three-part checklist of material unfairness, proportionality, and alignment with equitable precedents - it offers a systematic way to balance consistency and fairness. This is especially relevant in pluralistic legal systems like Kenya’s, where the mix of common law, equity, and customary traditions often leads to unpredictable outcomes. The framework’s adaptability is shown through hypothetical applications in property law, as well as historical and comparative examples like Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) and Scott v Scott (1958), which demonstrate how equity can refine legal outcomes without undermining the system.

Moreover, the framework’s potential extends beyond property and criminal law, where equity’s corrective role is already evident. By applying this approach to other areas - such as contract law, torts, and human rights - it offers a way to resolve longstanding tensions in these fields. For example, in contract law, the framework could guide courts in addressing unfair terms or disproportionate remedies, while in human rights cases, it could ensure that principles like fairness and dignity are consistently applied alongside statutory rules.

This article doesn’t claim to have all the answers to the equity-common law paradox. Instead, it invites readers to join in a speculative exploration of how equity might function as an internal corrective within the common law system. By grounding this exploration in case studies, thought experiments, and comparative analysis, the article contributes to an ongoing conversation about legal philosophy and practice. It challenges scholars, practitioners, and policymakers to rethink the relationship between equity and common law - not as adversaries, but as complementary forces that, when properly integrated, can make legal systems more just and legitimate.

In a world where legal systems are increasingly called on to handle complex, pluralistic disputes, the need for frameworks that balance predictability with fairness has never been greater. This article’s proposal is a step in that direction, offering a practical and theoretically grounded way to harmonize equity and common law. It’s a call to action for legal systems everywhere to embrace the strengths of both traditions, ensuring that the law remains both consistent and fair in an ever-changing world.

References

• Atieno-Odhiambo, E.S. The Paradox of Collaboration: The Colonial State and the Legal System in Kenya. Nairobi: East African Educational Publishers, 2002.
• Birks, Peter. Unjust Enrichment. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
• Chen-Wishart, Mindy. Contract Law. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
• Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
• Cotterrell, Roger. The Politics of Jurisprudence: A Critical Introduction to Legal Philosophy. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
• Denning, Lord. The Discipline of Law. London: Butterworths, 1979.
• Echaria v Echaria [2007] eKLR.
• Ephraim v Pastory [1990] LRC (Const) 757.
• Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic, Supreme Court of Kenya, Petition No. 15 of 2015 (2017).
• Glover, John. Equity and Restitution. 4th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2010.
• Judiciary of Kenya. Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2023. Nairobi: Judiciary of Kenya, 2023.
• Kenyan Land Registration Act, 2012.
• Knight, C.J.S. “Equity and Conscience.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 37, no. 3 (2017): 537–562.
• Legal Resources Foundation. Introduction to the Kenyan Legal System. Nairobi: LRF, 2015.
• Maitland, F.W. Equity: A Course of Lectures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909.
• Njonjo, Charles. The Kenyan Legal System: An Introduction. Nairobi: LawAfrica, 2010.
• Okoth-Ogendo, H.W.O. Tenants of the Crown: Evolution of Agrarian Law and Institutions in Kenya. Nairobi: ACTS Press, 1991.
• Scott v Scott, 255 F.2d 18 (2d Cir. 1958).
• Smith, Lionel. The Law of Restitution. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.
• Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17.
• Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) 21 Ch D 9.
• Waters, Donovan. The Law of Trusts in Canada. 4th ed. Toronto: Carswell, 2012.

[Author: George Nyongesa, PhD candidate, Department of Philosophy, University of Nairobi,

Email: grnyongesa@gmail.com]