13/05/2025
The Court of Appeal judgement in KAMBULAM v. DUBA (2022) LPELR-57202(CA) addresses two key principles: the mistake of counsel not being automatically visited on the litigant, and the scope of a counsel's authority in representing their client.
Regarding the mistake of counsel, the court acknowledges the established principle that a litigant should not suffer due to their lawyer's errors. However, it emphasizes that this principle is not a blanket escape route for bad cases or deliberate decisions taken by counsel on behalf of their client. The exception primarily covers procedural irregularities, not errors in how counsel conducts the substance of the case or strategic choices. The court further clarifies that incompetence or strategic blunders by counsel are not the kind of mistakes that warrant the litigant's exoneration. In this specific case, the appellant was bound by their previous counsel's informed decision not to oppose a document, even if their new counsel later claimed it was forged. The court also noted that a litigant's own lack of diligence in following up on their case can negate the argument about the mistake of counsel.
Concerning the authority of counsel, the court firmly states that once a lawyer is briefed, they have complete control over the conduct of the case and the client is generally bound by the professional decisions made by their counsel in court. This includes the power to compromise the case or submit to judgment, provided the counsel is not acting fraudulently. The client's recourse in cases of negligence or dissatisfaction with their counsel's handling of the case is to withdraw instructions or sue for professional negligence, but they are generally bound by the counsel's actions within their apparent authority during the proceedings.
