National Universities Commission V. Rev’d Segun Ademola Alli & Anor (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the decision of the Federal High Court Holden at Ibadan in Suit No. FHC/IB/CS/50/2009, delivered on the 26th day of July, 2011 by J.E. Shakarho, J. in which judgment was given in favour of the 1st Respondent granting all the reliefs sought.

The 1st Respondent herein was the plaintiff in the trial court and a student of the 2nd Respondent (hereafter referred to as the University) commenced action against the appellant as 1st defendant and the University as 2nd defendant by way of originating summons in the lower court in which the following questions were sought to be determined.

1. “Whether the 1st Defendant has the power in law to declare the Faculty of Law, Lead City University, Ibadan and its Law programme illegal, unapproved and unrecognized as it has impliedly done in its advertorial in The Nation Newspaper of Monday, October 12, 2009, same having been approved, recognized and licensed by the Federal Government of Nigeria and the 1st Defendant in its letter Ref. No. NUC/AS/122/vol. 1 of 15 April, 2008.
2. Whether the 1st Defendant has the power in law in view of the provisions of Sections 10 and 11 of the Education (National Minimum Standard and Establishment of Institutions) Act CAP E3 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 and Letter NUC/EC/ACCRED/ vol. 1/03 of 22 September, 2008 to declare invalid the accreditation of the law programme of the Lead City University, Ibadan.
3. Whether the National Universities Commissions Act, Cap N81 and the Education (National Minimum Standards and Establishment of Institution) Act, Cap E3, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 predicate the performance of the functions of the 1st Defendant on the presence, control, direction, dictation, and or supervision of another statutory body in this case, the Council of Legal Education.
4. Whether the 1st Defendant is not estopped in law to declare the law programme of the Lead City University, Ibadan illegal, unapproved and unrecognized having regard to its letter NUC/AS/122/vol. 1 of 15 April, 2008.”

The Plaintiff sought the following reliefs upon the determination of the above questions:

1. “A declaration that the 1st Defendant has no power to disapprove the law programme of the Lead City University, Ibadan as it has purportedly done as it was made in conformity with S.4 (i) (a), (b) (i), (ii), and (iii) of the National Universities Act, 2004.
2. A declaration that the 1st Defendant act (sic) of declaring the accreditation exercise of May, 2008 invalid for the reason that the “Legal Council of Education was not represented” is ultra vires its powers under SS 10 and 11 of Education (National Minimum and Establishment of Institutions) Act 2005 illegal, null, and void.
3. A declaration that the 1st Defendant is stopped from resiling in the approval and recognition it had earlier accorded the law programme of Lead City University, Ibadan.
4. A declaration that the 1st Defendant is bound in law to issue the result of the accreditation exercise of May, 2008 applying only its stated yardstick as contained in paragraph 2(a), (b) and (c) of its letter NUC/ES/ACCRED/vol. 1/03 of 22 September, 2008.
5. An order compelling the 1st Defendant to include the Faculty of Law, Lead City University, Ibadan in the list of approved, Legal and recognized Faculties of Law of Nigerian Universities.
6. N50, 000,000 (N50m) as general damages from the 1st Defendant only.
7. An order of prohibition restraining the 1st defendant, its agents and or privies from any further act that will portray the Faculty of Law, Lead City University, Ibadan as if legal, unapproved and unrecognized”.

In opposition to the originating summons the appellant filed a counter affidavit and a written address. At the close of the case judgment was given in favour of the 1st Respondent, Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellant appealed to this court vide its original Notice of Appeal dated 15/8/11 filed on 18/8/11 which was later amended. The amended Notice of Appeal dated 30th day of April, 2012 filed on 8th May, 2013, deemed as properly filed and served on 24th May, 2012 contained Nine (9) Grounds of Appeal, from which five (5) issues were distilled for the determination of this appeal. They are:

1. “Whether the learned trial judge erred in law in holding that the Plaintiff had locus standi to institute the action. (Distilled from Grounds 1-4 of the Grounds of Appeal).
2. Whether the Appellant has authority under the law establishing it to accredit or refuse the accreditation of a faculty and whether in the light of the evidence before the learned trial judge, he was right in holding that the faculty of law of the 2nd respondent University had been accredited (Distilled from Grounds 5-6 of the Grounds of Appeal).
3. Whether there was any evidence before the learned trial judge upon which he could base his finding either that the Faculty of Law of the 2nd Respondent University had been accredited or that the Appellant had failed to obtain the requisite permission to withdraw the accreditation of the faculty in spite of the fact that there was no evidence whatsoever that the said faculty had ever been accredited. (Distilled from Ground 7 of the Grounds of Appeal).
4. Whether the learned trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence before him before reaching his decision granting all the reliefs sought by the plaintiff. (Distilled from Ground 9 of the Grounds of Appeal).
5. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in indicting the Council of Legal Education and making orders against that body when it was not one of the parties to the action. (Distilled from Ground 8 of the Grounds of Appeal).”

In response, the 1st Respondent raised a preliminary objection to the competence of the entire appeal, which was argued in urging us to strike out the appeal. In the alternative, he distilled two issues for the determination of the appeal. They are:

1. “Whether the lower court was right in law to hold that the plaintiff/1st Respondent had locus standi to institute the action. (Grounds 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Appellant’s Amended Notice of Appeal).
2. Whether the lower court, was right in finding in favour of the plaintiff/1st Respondent on the merit of the plaintiff’s case.”

(Grounds 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal).

Similarly, the 2nd Respondent also raised a preliminary objection in which it also urged this court to strike out the appeal for being incompetent and in the alternative, formulated two issues for the determination of this appeal, they are:

(a) “Was the lower court right in finding in favour of the plaintiff/ Respondent on the issue of locus standi?

(Grounds 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal).

(b) Was the lower court right in finding in favour of the plaintiff/Respondent on the merit of the plaintiff’s case?

Grounds 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal).”

When the appeal was argued, the learned Senior Counsel Kanu Agabi (SAN) with Peter Erivwode Esq. for the Appellant adopted and relied on his Amended Brief of Argument dated 30/5/12 filed on 31/5/12 and his reply briefs dated 28/6/12 filed on 29/6/12 deemed filed on 2/7/12 in response to the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ briefs respectively, in urging us to hold that the appeal has merit and allowing same.

In arguing his first issue, the learned senior counsel defined locus standi as the legal capacity to institute an action in court, which where, lacking would deprive the court of jurisdiction to entertain the claims, see DISU V. AJILOWURA (2006) 14 NWLR (pt.1000) PAGE 783 at PAGE 804 PARAGRAPHS E-G. It was submitted that the originating process has to be examined to determine the cause of action, these are the rights and obligation or interest of the plaintiff’s which has been violated. See, A-G ANAMBRA STATE V. EBOH (1992) 1 NWLR (pt. 218) at PAGE 507, PARAGRAPH D-E. SENATOR ADESANYA V. PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & ANOR (1981) 5 SC 112 at PAGE 162, (2001) FWLR (PT. 46) 859 at PAGE 901.