Babcock University Illishan & Ors. V. Miss Aderonke Faniyan & Ors (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

STANLEY SHENKO ALAGOA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

In the High Court Registry Sagamu of the Sagamu Judicial Division of Ogun State of Nigeria, the present Respondents as Plaintiffs claimed against the Appellants jointly and severally as per paragraph 18 of their statement of claim as follows-

(i) Declaration that having complied with the conditions and requirements contained in page 114 of the UME Brochure of 2001/2002 academic sessions, the plaintiffs were rightly admitted into the Department of Public Health Education for the Bachelor of Science Degree of Babcock University Ilishan.

(ii) Declaration that having attended and passed all Courses required for the Bachelor of Science Degree of the Public Health Education Department of Babcock University Ilishan, the plaintiffs are entitled to be conferred with the Bachelor of Science Degree of the Public Health Education Department of Babcock University Ilishan.

(iii) An order of this Honourable Court compelling the 1st Defendant to confer on the Plaintiffs the Bachelor of Science Degree of Public Health Education, Babcock University Ilishan and to duly grant unto them requisite certificates confirming that the Degree had been so confirmed on them.

Pleadings having been filed were exchanged between the parties. The case put up by the plaintiffs in the court below and as contained in their statement of claim at pages 3-6 of the Record of Appeal is briefly set out as follows-

The Plaintiffs were final year students of the Defendant University who had recently completed their course of study for the Bachelor of Science Degree in the Department of Public Health Education of the University. The Plaintiffs had earlier applied for admission into the said department for the 2001/2002 academic session, the requirement for admission as contained in page 114 of the U.M.E. Brochure for the 2001/2002 academic session being five 0′ level credit including credits in two science subjects and English Language. The Plaintiffs averred that they satisfied the basic admission requirements and were invited for examination by the authorities of the Defendant institution and having succeeded in the said examination, they were offered admission into the institution by written letters issued to each of them. They went on further to aver that they attended and passed all requisite courses to meet their graduation for the Bachelor of Science Degree in the Department of Public Health Education of the Defendant institution. Sometime in March 2005, the authorities of the Defendant institution verbally invited the parents of the plaintiffs and informed them that they would not be able to graduate their wards because the Faculty of Science of the University under which the Plaintiff’s Department is had insisted that unless the plaintiffs had WAEC credit grades in Mathematics and Chemistry, they would not graduate for Bachelor of Science in the Department of Public Health Education. Having been thus informed by their parents, the plaintiffs each wrote to the Defendant institution why it will not be proper to deny them graduation in their course of study. The Defendants did not respond to the plaintiffs’ letters as a result of which the parents of the Plaintiffs consulted the Plaintiff’s Solicitor who upon instruction wrote to the Defendant institution requesting that good reason should prevail by the Defendant conferring the requisite degree on the plaintiffs if eventually they succeeded in their exams. Upon receipt of the Solicitor’s letter, the Defendant invited the Plaintiffs’ parents to a meeting where they informed them that the university authorities had reappraised the situation and had agreed that the plaintiffs would graduate with their contemporaries upon completion of their course. The plaintiffs went on to further aver that on the 26th May, 2005, the 1st Plaintiff’s father was summoned by the 1st Defendant’s Deputy Vice Chancellor and informed that the authorities of the university had reverted to their former position and that the Plaintiffs would not graduate unless they met the new requirements. The plaintiffs again averred that during their course of study in the past four years they had gone through various courses in Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry in the University as pre-requisite for their Bachelor of Science Degree in Public Health Education and had I performed creditably academically recording high grades throughout the duration of their course. They also averred that each of their parents had expended not less than Three Million Naira (N3,000,000.00) as school fees, books, sundry academic materials and upkeep for the four year duration of their course of study. It was the averment of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants had fixed the convocation ceremony for the 5th June, 2005 and they had told the Plaintiffs that they could not graduate until they met the new conditions. The Plaintiffs contended that:

(i) Having met the requisite conditions for admission into the University the authorities of the Defendant cannot introduce new conditions to frustrate their graduation at the end of their course.

(ii) They had attended and passed all requisite courses for the Bachelor of Science in Public Health Education and it will be inequitable for the authorities of the Defendant University to ask them to furnish fresh requirements for admission when they had already completed their course of study in the Department of Public Health Education in the Defendant University.

In the Defendant’s statement of defence at pages 22-24 of the Record of Appeal they denied substantially the averments in the statement of claim and averred that the Plaintiffs were offered provisional admission to study at the Defendant institution subject to their presentation of requisite academic or University requirements which they failed and or neglected to provide and that the Plaintiffs could not meet up with the University and JAMB requirement in their field of study. The Defendants further averred that upon representation by the Plaintiffs that they had requisite admission requirements, the Plaintiffs were allowed to sit for the Defendant’s internal exams subject to verification of their results which must meet both the University and the Departmental requirements. They further averred that the Plaintiffs were warned repeatedly to complete their admission requirement but the instructions were grossly neglected by the Plaintiffs, hence the need for the Defendants to invite the Plaintiff’s parents to inform them of the consequences of their children’s action.

The Defendants further went on to aver that the Plaintiff’s ploy and plea that the Defendants resort to unethical means to authenticate their admission was rebuffed by the Defendants as the Defendants had already made its position clear that unqualified students would not be permitted to graduate. It is the averment of the Defendant that despite its position on this issue, the Plaintiffs were still undergoing studies in the Defendant institution in defiance to the already laid down rules and procedure for admission as stipulated by JAMB and the university authorities. The Defendants went on to aver that at no time did they (the Defendants) introduce new facts as a measure for admission requirement. They further averred that the convocation of the Defendant University took place on the 5th June, 2005 as scheduled and that the Plaintiffs were not allowed to graduate because they did not satisfy the University requirements for graduation which included departmental requirements. The Defendant therefore urged the Court to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim with heavy costs.

The Plaintiffs filed a Reply to the Statement of Defence at page 51 of the Record of Appeal substantially denying the averments in the Statement of Defence and more specifically the averment by the Defendant that they (Defendants) informed the Plaintiffs or their parents that the Plaintiffs did not meet the University or JAMB requirement for admission to study their respective Courses via the letter dated 21st January, 2003 or at any other time or date whatsoever.

The case went on to be heard with the plaintiffs calling four witnesses PW1-PW4. The Defendants called no evidence choosing to rest their case on that of Plaintiffs. A number of exhibits which will be referred to in the course of this discourse were tendered, admitted and relied upon by Counsel and the Court. Written addresses of Counsel were ordered by the Court. Counsel for the Defendants indicated that he would be replying only on points of law. In a considered judgment delivered on the 30th March, 2006, the learned trial Judge O. O. Majekodunmi J. gave judgment for the Plaintiffs and declared as follows-

1. It is hereby declared that having complied with the conditions and requirement contained in P. 114 of the U.M.E. Brochure of 2001/2002 academic sessions, the Plaintiffs were rightly admitted into the Department of Public Health Education for the Bachelor of Science Degree of Babcock University, Ilishan.
2. It is further declared that having attended and passed all courses required for the Bachelor of Science Degree of the Public Health Education Department of Babcock University Ilishan, the Plaintiffs are entitled to be conferred with the Bachelor of Science Degree of the Public Health Education Department of Babcock University, Ilishan.
3. The Defendants are hereby ordered to confer on the Plaintiffs the Bachelor of Science Degree of the Department of Public Health Education, Babcock University Ilishan and to duly grant them Certificates confirming that the Degree had been so conferred on them. There shall be no order as to costs.

It is this Judgment that the Defendants, now Appellants have appealed against by their Notice of Appeal dated the 3rd April, 2006 and filed on the 12th April, 2006. The said Notice of Appeal is contained at pages 76-98 of the Record of Appeal. It consists of eight grounds of appeal which are reproduced hereunder shorn of particulars-