The University of Jos & Ors V. Amuruche Chukwuemeka Enwereji & Anor (1985)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AKANBI, J.C.A.

This is an application brought on behalf of the applicants praying the Court for an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against the ruling of the Plateau State High Court in Suit No. NJ/208/1984 and for such further order or orders as the Court may deem fit to make. The reason for the delay in appealing within time is contained in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the affidavit filed in support of the application.
These paragraphs read as follows:-

7. “That I am informed by the 3rd Applicant whom I verily believe that the 2nd Applicant, Professor E.U. Emovon. Vice Chancellor of the 1st Applicant University has been travelling intermittently outside Jos since the ruling of 10th January 1985 aforesaid and has not been able to study the said ruling and its effect on the University administration.

8. That I am informed by Mr. Brown-Peterside aforesaid whom I verily believe that he has just received instructions to appeal against the ruling given by the lower court particularly set out in Annexure ‘C’ aforesaid.

9. That I am again informed by M. Brown-Peterside aforesaid whom I verily believe that he has carefully studied the said ruling and has prepared proposed grounds of appeal which will be filed with the relevant application in the lower court in the event this application succeeds, a copy of which is annexed herewith and marked Annexure ‘E’.

10. That it is essential in the interest of justice that time be extended within which to file the necessary papers in the lower court pertaining or about 24/1/85.

11. That I am informed by the 4th Applicant whom I verily believe that to allow Annexure ‘C’ aforesaid to stand will impair the smooth running of the Faculty of Medicine of the 1st Applicant University and expose it to unnecessary expense.”

The grounds proposed to be canvassed if the application is granted also read as follows:-

1. “The learned trial Judge erred in law in failing to set aside the order made on the 19th of December, 1984 restraining the University from expelling the Respondents, and this error occasioned miscarriage of justice.

Particulars of Error

It is clear from the record before the lower Court that the Respondents were expelled on 13/11/84. The order restraining the expulsion on 19/12/84 is an ex post fact order which the learned trial Judge had no jurisdiction to make.

2. The learned trial Judge further erred in law in holding that he could take judicial notice of his judgment which is not certified as required by law under Section 73(1)(m) of the Evidence Act, and this error also led to failure of justice.

Particulars of Error

Section 131(1) of the Evidence Act makes it quite clear that the only evidence that can be given of a judgment is the document itself. The learned trial Judge was clearly in error in ignoring this section of the law, especially as the judgment to which he gave cognisance is not certified as required by Section 110(1) of the Evidence Act, being a public document. This is contrary to the Supreme Court decision in Dobadina Family & Anor. V. Ambrose Family & Ors. (1969) NMLR page 24 which is binding on him.”