University Of Ilorin V. Olufemi Ibukun Dunmade (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.C.A. (Delivering The Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the decision of the Federal High court sitting in Ilorin presided over by Aliyu J; delivered on 27th July, 2011.

The Plaintiff now Respondent before us, started his Ph.D part time Programme in 1992, he could not complete the program within the allowable period due to some intervening factors, which culminated in the plaintiff taking out writ of summons against the Defendant Appellant on 15th July, 2008.

The trial court delivered judgment on 27th July, 2011. The Defendant became aggrieved by the decision, and therefore filed notice of appeal containing ten grounds on 1st August 2011. The grounds of appeal without their particulars are reproduced as follows:

1. The Honourable court erred in law, when it dabbled into the affairs of the Defendant/Appellant concerning award of Ph.D degree, thereby over-ruling the Defendant/Appellants objection to its jurisdiction.

2, The Honourable trial court erred in law, when it held that the plaintiff/Respondents suit was not inchoate in the circumstance and thereby came to a wrong conclusion.

3. The Honourable court erred in law, when it held that

“The argument in support of this ground proffered by the defence counsel is that the calls of this action arose on 20th June, 2003, when the plaintiff wrote to the Defendant a letter which was not favoured with a reply. Having admitted that, the defendant did not favour the plaintiff with a reply on this letter, how can a call of action arise for the purpose of the application of the above provisions of the POPA, it is evidence (1) that the last thing which the plaintiff heard from the defendant is that his examination result is being attended to.

It is logical for the plaintiff to still be in the hope that, what the Defendant said was correct. No cause of action has accrued in the circumstances of this case to warrant the invocation of Section 2(a) of the POPA. The objection of the defendant on the grounds stated has no merit and it is dismissed. I answer issue one formulated in the affirmative that is to say that, this suit is competent, and the court has the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine it on the merit”.

4. The Honourable court erred in law, when it held that,

“now having exercised this statutory duty and allowed plaintiff the take his examination, wilt it too just for the same University to turn around and say that, the examination which it concluded was a nullity and declare that against the plaintiff, If the examination was wrongly conducted, it was conducted by the defendant not by the plaintiff. No one is allowed, to benefit from his own wrong and deprive another of his right. In this case, the University is claiming that, it exercises its duty outside the period of the plaintiffs Ph.D program, and allowed him to take the examination which he has passed.

I have to agree with the Plaintiffs counsel, that the University has acquiesce and waived whatever delay it may claim against the student, and the principle of estoppels will apply to stop the defendant from belatedly remembering that, the plaintiff had overstayed its program and based on that, without his degree. That, stand of the University is not only an after-thought, but it is oppressive because other students who overstayed like the plaintiff were awarded their Ph.D as shown in our review of the documentary evidence earlier”.

5. The Honourable trial court erred in law, when it held that,

“I must comment on the comments of the Head of Department, and the Dean of Faculty of Arts. The postgraduate School after conducting examinations for the plaintiff, went on a fact finding mission to ask his Supervisor HOD and Dean of Faculty to comment on the issue of overstay of the plaintiff it strongly held on to comments of the plaintiffs supervisor, that, the supervision of the plaintiffs Ph.D degree difficult, and the HODs comments of the plaintiffs attitude to work.

These comments are not unsupported by any facts but are contradictory to the examiner’s report on the Ph.D thesis. In any event, the comments did not claim that the plaintiff did not pass his examinations, nor stated that, the causes of the delay are not as stated by the plaintiff. It is still belated for the defendant, which has already conducted examination to look for plaintiffs fault in order to deny him his degree and I so hold”.

6. The Honourable trial court erred in law when it held that.

“There is no doubt, that the University has the ultimate academic authority to ascertain and decide on who to award its degree to. It has the discretion whether or not to award its degree ‘Margit Vs University of Agriculture Makurdi (Supra). But in the exercise at that discretion, it must be fair to all students, and treat all students equally before it, in its decision to award the degrees…it must be seen to treat each case fairly and all its students equally. …the least that is expected of a university system which has such enormous responsibility of training future leaders, in the final analysis, the plaintiffs Ph.D has not been treated fairly by the Defendant, having regards to all the circumstances of this case. The manner of the post-graduate school went about seeking the fault of the plaintiff, so as to use same as the basis, not to recommend him for the award of the Ph.D degree shows malice”.

7. The Honourable trial court erred in law, when it held that;

“Having held on to his Ph.D degree for so long as found above, the plaintiff is entitled to damages. He had shown by evidence that he had to take a lower appointment thon his senior Lecturer because of the change of policy in the university system, whereby any holders of the Ph.D are made Senior lecturers. This evidence has not been contradicted, I believe him. Consequently, I am of the view and indeed so hold that, the plaintiff has proved his case, and he is entitled to judgment, which hereby entered in his favour against the defendant in the following terms”.

8. The Honourable court erred in law in granting the reliefs awarded to the Respondent when he palpably failed to establish his entitlement to same, thereby reaching a wrong conclusion occasioning miscarriage of justice on the Appellant.
9. The trial court erred in law, in awarding Ten Million Naira (N10,000,000.00) exemplary damages against the appellant when there is no factual or legal justification for same, thereby occasioning a grave miscarriage of justice on the Appellant.
10. The judgment of the trial court is against the weight of evidence.

Learned counsel for the Appellant K. K. Eleja distilled from Appellants grounds of appeal, the following issues for determination.