LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Mistake of Counsel – Procedural Irregularities – Pursuit of Real Justice
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The Court of Appeal referred to our decision in Ukpe Ibodo v. Enarofia where we refused to visit the sins of the counsel upon the client for some procedural neglect. We took care in the case to limit our concern to 'mere procedural irregularities' made by counsel. Of course, this was not saying anything novel as the concern of this court has always been in pursuit of real, as opposed to cosmetic justice. This court is a court of concrete justice and not one interested in 'shadow boxing.'
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, quoting Eso, JSC in Bello Akanbi & Ors v. Mamudu Alao & Anor, in Ogundoyin & Ors v. Adeyemi (2001) NLC-1231996(SC) at pp. 8–9; Paras E–A.
"The Court of Appeal referred to our decision in Ukpe Ibodo v. Enarofia where we refused to visit the sins of the counsel upon the client for some procedural neglect. We took care in the case to limit our concern to 'mere procedural irregularities' made by counsel. Of course, this was not saying anything novel as the concern of this court has always been in pursuit of real, as opposed to cosmetic justice. This court is a court of concrete justice and not one interested in 'shadow boxing.'"
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Courts pursue “real, as opposed to cosmetic justice” and avoid “shadow boxing”—deciding cases on technicalities rather than merits. Procedural irregularities by counsel should not be visited on the client. The principle applies to “mere procedural irregularities”—not fundamental defects affecting jurisdiction. The court’s concern is concrete justice, not procedural perfection. However, the client cannot benefit from deliberate or grossly negligent conduct. The opposing party may be protected by costs orders. This principle ensures that cases are decided on their substantive merits where possible. Courts balance procedural compliance with substantive justice, preferring the latter when conflict arises.