Behind the Mask: Agency, Delegation, and Legal Responsibility

Exploring the Principle of Qui facit per alium facit per se

By P.L. Osakwe

“When a man sends a servant to burn a house, the flame carries his signature. Law does not see the hand—it sees the will behind it.” P.L. Osakwe

■ Introduction

In law, appearance often deceives. Many wrongs are not carried out by the mastermind, but by a subordinate, a messenger, an employee, or an agent. So, who bears the legal burden: the hand that struck, or the mind that ordered it?

This dilemma is resolved by a deeply rooted legal maxim: Qui facit per alium facit per se — he who acts through another, acts himself.

It is a cornerstone of agency law, corporate liability, employment law, and vicarious liability. While it may sound like a dusty Latin phrase, its real-world impact is profound. In Nigeria today, this doctrine continues to shape cases in banking, tort, company law, and constitutional responsibility.

■ What Does the Principle Mean?

Legal Translation: A person who authorizes or directs another to perform an act is legally responsible as if they did it themselves.

This applies when:

An agent acts on behalf of a principal,
An employee commits a tort within the scope of employment,
° A company acts through its officers, or
° A government delegate abuses power.
■ Real-World Application of the Principle

1. Agency Law

If A authorizes B to sell goods, B’s actions bind A. If B misrepresents facts to a buyer, A is still responsible.

Example: In Okwejiminor v. Gbakeji & Anor (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1079) 172, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that a principal is liable for the acts of his agent performed within the scope of authority.

2. Vicarious Liability in Torts

If an employee injures someone while performing their duties, the employer (master) is held liable—even if they never gave direct instructions.

Example: In Ibrahim v. Ojomo (2004) 4 NWLR (Pt. 862) 89, an employer was held liable for injuries caused by his driver while on duty.

3. Corporate Acts Through Directors

A company is a legal person. It has no body, mind, or limbs. It can only act through human agents—its directors, officers, and employees.

Example: In Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v. Nattrass (1972), the House of Lords held that acts of senior officers may be attributed directly to the company. This doctrine underlies corporate criminal liability in Nigeria as well.

4. Government Delegation and Abuse of Power

A government official acting in a minister’s name—such as land allocation or revenue collection—can bind the government. But if abused, the principal (state) may also be liable.

Example: In Shitta-Bey v. Federal Public Service Commission (1981) 1 SC 40, the court held that acts of authorized officers are binding on the principal public authority.

■ Benefits of the Principle in Legal Practice

1. Holds Power Accountable: Prevents powerful principals from hiding behind agents.

2. Simplifies Legal Redress: Affected parties need not chase agents—they can sue the source.

3. Enforces Responsibility: Encourages better control and supervision of subordinates.

4. Essential in Corporate Law: Underpins how companies and institutions are sued and held liable.

5. Foundational in Tort and Labour Law: Helps victims of road accidents, workplace injury, and fraud trace liability back to the employer or contractor.

■ Cautions and Limits

1. The agent must act within authority (actual or apparent).

2. The principal must have empowered the agent, expressly or by conduct.

3. Acts outside the scope of employment may not bind the employer.

4. Criminal responsibility may not always be transferred unless intent is proved.

■ Use in Nigerian Legal Practice

Lawyers regularly invoke this principle to:

● Sue employers for employees’ negligence (e.g. in hospital, transport, factory cases).

● Challenge company frauds committed by officers.

● Hold banks liable for unauthorized actions of staff.

● Fix ministerial liability in administrative decisions executed by lower officers.

It is a core tool in litigation and transaction drafting—especially when structuring authority in corporate, land, or agency relationships.

■ Conclusion

“Qui facit per alium facit per se” is more than a Latin tongue-twister. It is a legal truth: authority creates accountability. It ensures that power, once delegated, cannot be disowned when things go wrong.

It teaches that legal masks can be pierced—and the man behind the curtain cannot escape justice.

“In law, you cannot use others as pawns and claim innocence. The law sees through the hands to the head behind them.”
P.L. Osakwe