The Nigerian Supreme Court in Theophilus Adebayo Doherty & Henry Ade Doherty v. Richard Ade Doherty (1964) delivered a landmark ruling on the question of whether litigants should be punished for the negligence of their solicitors. This case remains a vital authority in civil appellate practice, particularly on the restoration of appeals dismissed for non-compliance with procedural rules.
It touches on a crucial legal dilemma: Should a party suffer the consequences of his lawyer’s mistake, even where the default was not caused by him directly? The court’s decision addressed this conflict, balancing the integrity of procedure with the principle of justice.
Background and Facts of the Case Doherty V. Doherty (1964)
The dispute arose when the appellants’ solicitors failed to comply with the requirements of the Registrar of the Supreme Court under the Supreme Court Rules, 1961, Order 7 Rule 17(1). Despite being duly served with notice to appear, the appellants’ solicitors neither attended before the Registrar nor fulfilled the conditions imposed on them.
Significantly, the appellants themselves were never served with notice to appear before the Registrar. They subsequently applied under Rule 17(4) for the restoration of their appeal. The respondent objected, but could not demonstrate that restoring the appeal would cause him such prejudice as to render the move inequitable.
Adding to the procedural twist, after the appeal had been dismissed, the respondent voluntarily withdrew his cross-appeal against the stay of the order appealed from.
Issues Before the Court in Doherty V Doherty
The central legal issue was straightforward yet profound:
Whether a litigant should be made to suffer for the negligence or omission of his solicitor in failing to comply with procedural rules
Court’s Decision Doherty V Doherty
The Supreme Court held that the appellants could not be punished for the failings of their solicitors. Since the appellants were not served with notice to appear before the Registrar, and no substantial prejudice was shown by the respondent, justice demanded that the appeal be restored.
Dictum
“The appellants could not be held responsible for their solicitors’ failure to comply with the conditions imposed by the Registrar, and the appeal would be restored.”
Thus, the application under Rule 17(4) succeeded, and the appeal was reinstated.
Egbe v. Adefarasin & Anor (1985) FULL SUMMARY
Doctrine of Necessity: Meaning, Key Cases, and Application in Constitutional Law
