LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Delay in Filing Appeal – Mistake or Inadvertence of Counsel Not to Be Visited on Litigant
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Yet it is desirable to be reminded that this Court has stated in several decisions that it is not right to visit the parties with punishment arising out of the mistakes or inadvertence or negligence of Counsel. It follows that in such a case, the Court is not estopped in the exercise of its discretion, which requires the court to exercise its powers judicially and judiciously.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ejiwunmi, JSC, in Central Bank of Nigeria v. Ahmed & Ors (2001) NLC-92001(SC) at p. 22; Paras B–D.
"Yet it is desirable to be reminded that this Court has stated in several decisions that it is not right to visit the parties with punishment arising out of the mistakes or inadvertence or negligence of Counsel. It follows that in such a case, the Court is not estopped in the exercise of its discretion, which requires the court to exercise its powers judicially and judiciously."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A litigant should not be punished for the mistakes, inadvertence, or negligence of their counsel. The court’s discretion is not estopped by counsel’s error. The court exercises its powers judicially and judiciously, focusing on substantial justice rather than penalising the litigant for counsel’s fault. The principle applies to procedural errors, delays, and other defaults caused by counsel. The litigant is entitled to have their case decided on the merits. However, the mistake must be genuine—not deliberate or grossly negligent. The opposing party may be compensated by costs. The court balances fairness to both parties. The principle prevents injustice from professional errors. The litigant has a remedy against counsel for negligence.
