University Of Ilorin V. MR. Jolayemi Ademola Ayodeji (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Appellant who was the Defendant at the trial Court has brought this appeal against the decision of the Federal High Court, Ilorin, presided over by Bilkisu Bello Aliyu, J. In the said judgment delivered on 27th July, 2011, the trial Court entered judgment for the Respondent.

In expression of dissatisfaction with the trial Court’s judgment, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal containing 7 Grounds of Appeal on 1st August, 2011. The Notice of Appeal is contained at pages 280 – 287 of the record. With the leave of this Court, the Appellant filed an Amended Notice of Appeal containing 10 Grounds of Appeal on 22nd November, 2011.

The facts before the trial court was that, the Respondent while a senior lecturer with the Appellant got admitted as a part-time Ph.D. student in the University in 1995. He allegedly carried on with his program without defaulting on any of the registration requirements and concluded the programme in November, 2000. Upon the submission of his thesis, the Board of Post Graduate School of the Appellant constituted a five-man examination panel to examine him.

The oral defence of his thesis was scheduled for 9th March, 2001. This could not hold because the University was closed down on 7th March, 2001 as a result of industrial crisis that engulfed the University. Before the re-opening of the University, three out of the five members of the examination panel for the Respondent had been sacked as lecturers, thereupon the examination panel could not function.

The Respondent said he made several appeals to the University to reconstitute the requisite examination panel for him but his appeals were not heeded by the Appellant out of malice. On 8th March, 2002, the Head of the Respondent’s Department who was also his Chief Examiner, Dr. Bukoye Arowolo wrote a “TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN” by which he gave an update of the Respondent’s Ph.D. programme and indicated that the Respondent had virtually concluded the programme.

In addition, the Respondent also wrote two letters to the Appellant on 17th of November, 2003 and 18th May, 2004 titled: “REQUEST FOR AN UPDATE ON Ph.D. VIVA” and “REACTIVATION OF Ph.D. PROGRAMME: A PASSIONATE APPEAL respectively.” Even the external examiner of the Respondent wrote a letter to the Post Graduate School of the University on 8th November, 2004, enquiring the position of the authorities on the defence of the Ph.D. of the Respondent, but the Respondent claimed that this letter and the appeals he wrote were all rebuffed by the Appellant.

The Respondent claimed that the delay in the re-constitution of the examination panel delayed the conclusion of his Ph.D. program and caused his loss of a research fellowship, awarded to him by the Alexander Von Humboldt Foundation in Germany.

He said after many years of waiting for the Appellant to re-constitute the examination panel, he finally instructed his lawyers to write to the Appellant demanding the re-activation of his Ph.D. programme within 14 days of the receipt of the demand letter which was dated 16th April, 2008.

Despite this demand letter the Appellant kept mum on the fate of the Respondent’s Ph.D. program. He contended that the refusal of the Appellant to allow him conclude his Ph.D. program is arbitrary, malicious, oppressive and a manifestation of hatred for his person by those at the helm of the affairs of the administration of the Appellant.

Based on this fact stated in his amended statement of claim, the Respondent claimed the following reliefs against the Appellant:

“1. A declaration that the refusal, failure or neglect of the Defendant to constitute the requisite panel for the oral examination of the Plaintiff on his thesis since 2001 till date is unlawful, malicious, arbitrary and oppressive in the extreme on the footing of which the plaintiff is entitled to be assuaged in damages.

2. A declaration that it will be unjust, inequitable and indefensible in law to allow the Defendant to permanently deny the plaintiff of the opportunity of concluding the Ph.D. program, regard being had to the fact that the Plaintiff was/is not responsible for any delay or culpable for any malfeasance in respect thereof.
3. A sum of N50 Million as aggravated and/exemplary damages for the career stagnation or retrogression, academic misfortune, untold agony and emotional distress caused by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on the footing of the unjustified denial of the opportunity to complete his Ph.D. all these years.
4. AND ORDER compelling the Defendant to fortwith set up the requisite examination panel for the oral examination of the Plaintiff’s thesis and subsequent thereto award the Ph.D. degree backdated as appropriate vis-a-vis the original schedule to the Plaintiff, subject to all relevant conditions of award of the degree to the plaintiff.”

The Appellant in reaction to the process served on it filed a statement of defence in which a Notice of Preliminary Objection was incorporated. The said objection challenged the competence of the suit on a variety of grounds. The statement of defence is at pages 32 – 35 of the record.

Apart from the objection incorporated in the statement of defence, the Appellant also joined issue with the Respondent regarding averments contained in the statement of claim and denied the entitlement of the Respondent to any of the reliefs sought before the trial Court.