BABCOCK UNIVERSITY ILLISHAN & ORS. V. MISS ADERONKE FANIYAN & ORS
(2010)LCN/3798(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Monday, the 17th day of May, 2010
CA/I/46/07
RATIO
EVIDENCE: THE MODERN METHOD OF PLEADING ESTOPPEL BY RECORD AND DEED
In OBI IZEDIUNO EZEWANI THE OBI OF OGWASHI UKWU V. OBI NKADI ONWORDI & 3. ORS (1986) NWLR PART 33, page 27at 29, the Supreme Court held as follows:
“Although the old practice was that estoppel by record and deed must be pleaded where there was opportunity to do so, under the modern practice it is not however necessary to plead estoppel in any particular form so long as the matters constituting estoppel are stated in such, manner to show that the party pleading relies upon it as a defence or answer.”
See also CHINWENDU V. MBAMALI & ANOR (1980) 3-4 SC page 31 at 48. PER STANLEY SHENKO ALAGOA, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
STANLEY SHENKO ALAGOA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
KUDIRAT M. O. KEKERE-EKUN Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
SIDI DAUDA BAGE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. BABCOCK UNIVERSITY ILLISHAN
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, BABCOCK UNIVERSITY
3. THE REGISTRAR, BABCOCK UNIVERSITY Appellant(s)
AND
1. MISS ADERONKE FANIYAN
2. MISS OLUWATOYIN ADELEKE
3. MISS TUTU AKINSANYA
4. MISS SARAH BOJOWA Respondent(s)
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-
GROUND ONE
The learned trial Judge erred in law when she held that the Respondents complied with JAMB/UME Brochure of 2001/2002 academic sessions for admission into the Department of Public Health Education for the Bachelor of Science Degree of Babcock University, IIishan.
GROUND TWO
The learned trial Judge misdirected herself when she held that Respondents complied with admission requirements of Babcock University and the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board at the time of admission.
GROUND THREE
The learned trial judge erred in law when she held that the Respondents are entitled to the plea of Estoppel to found this action.
GROUND FOUR
The learned trial Judge erred in law when she held that the Respondent set the time the Plaintiffs were about to graduate introduced new pre-requisites to the Plaintiffs before they can graduate.
GROUND FIVE
The learned trial Judge erred in law when she held that the Appellants acted erratically, impulsively and suddenly as on a whim and capriciously towards the Respondents.
GROUND SIX
The learned trial court erred in law in making a declaration that the Respondents possessed requisite requirements for admission when their School Certificates were not tendered.
GROUND SEVEN
The learned trial Judge erred in law when she ordered the Appellants to confer on the Respondents 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.
GROUND EIGHT
The Judgment in the trial court is unwarranted having regard to weight of evidence before the court.
From the eight Grounds of Appeal contained in the Notice of Appeal, the Appellants at page 1 of their Brief of Argument dated 2nd May 2007 and filed same day formulated the following seven issues for the determination of this Court
1. Whether the Respondents satisfied JAMB/UME admission requirement for a degree in Public Health given the JAMB/UME Brochure of 2001/2002 academic (sic).
2. Whether the trial Judge misdirected herself when she held that Respondents complied with the admission requirements of the Appellant University and JAMB at the time of admission.
3. Whether the Respondents are entitled to the plea of Estoppel to found this action.
4. Whether indeed the Appellant introduced new pre-requisites to the Respondents before they can graduate.
5. Whether Appellants acted erratically, impulsively and capriciously towards the Respondents.
6. Whether the trial court was correct when it declared that the Respondents possessed requisite requirements for admission when they did not tender their certificates.
7. Whether the trial Judge acted within the law when she ordered the Appellants to confer on the Respondent’s Bachelor of Science Degree of Appellant’s University.
The Respondents on their part distilled the following issues for determination in paragraph 2.1 at page 20 of their Brief of Argument dated 18th May, 2008 and filed on the 19th May, 2008. The issues are as follows –
1. What is the position of the evidence before the court especially considering the fact of the Appellants not leading evidence on their defence.
2. Whether the Respondents complied with admission requirements relevant to their course of study in the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board UME/DE Brochure 2001/2002 sequel to their sitting for their entrance examination and interview for admission with Babcock University for the Bachelor of Science Degree in Public Health Education.
3. Whether in the light of the Appellants abandoning their pleadings and from the trend of evidence adduced by the Respondents at the trial of this case, it would be necessary for the Respondents to prove that they possess the requirement for admission in page 114 of Exhibit A.
4. Whether in the circumstances of the case, the Appellants can at the time the Respondents were three months away from the graduation introduce new pre-requisites for qualification to read their course of study to prevent the Respondents from graduating at the end of their course.
5. Whether the learned trial Judge can order the Appellants to confer on the Respondents the Bachelor of Science Degree in Public Health Education of the 1st Appellant University.
The Appeal came up for hearing on the 24th March, 2010. Paul C. Ananaba, Counsel for the Appellants adopted and relied on the Appellant’s Brief of Argument and urged this Court to allow the appeal. Bowofade Aderemi, Counsel for the Respondents adopted and relied on the Respondent’s Brief of Argument and urged this Court to dismiss the appeal.
The issues formulated by the Appellants cover all the grounds of Appeal though they appear somewhat proliferated. The Supreme Court has constantly and consistently advised against the proliferation of issues when a fewer number of issues will suffice.
The Appellant’s issues have already been highlighted and I intend to merge those issues that can conveniently be dealt with together. For example Issues 1, 2 and 6 can be conveniently dealt with together and they are –
1. Whether the Respondents satisfied – JAMB/UME Admission requirement for a degree in Public – Health given- the JAMB/UME Brochure of 2001/2002 Academic Session.
2. Whether the trial Judge – misdirected herself when she held that Respondents complied with the admission requirements of the Appellant University and JAMB at the time of admission.
6. Whether the trial court was correct when it declared that the Respondents possessed requisite requirements for admission when they did not tender their certificates.
Appellants referred to Chapter 2 at page 3 paragraphs 2.00 and 2.1.03 of the 2001/2002 JAMB/UME Brochure to submit that contrary to the provisions contained therein, PW1 and PW3 admitted not having credits in Mathematics and Chemistry when they were cross-examined; that PW4 told the Court that she had credit in Mathematics but did not know the grade. The Respondents according to Appellant’s Counsel did not tender their West African School Certificate for verification of their assertion that they were qualified for admission. Counsel submitted that the brochure made it specific that a credit in Mathematics is required for all Science Courses and that the Appellants did not waive that requirement for the Respondents. It is the University and not the Court that determines who qualifies for admission and the award of certificates Counsel said. He relied on MAGITE V. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE MAKURDI 2006 4 WRN P. 86 at 96; ESIAGA V. UNICAL 2006 MJSC 69 at 74; WAPGMC V. OKOJIE 2003 11 WRN 43.
Appellants’ Counsel went further to submit that the Respondents were only given provisional admission subject to the verification of their results and this position, he said, is amplified in the letters of offer of provisional admission admitted as Exhibits B, D & E.
Respondents’ Counsel has in paragraph 4.1 at page 3 of the Respondents’ Brief of Argument referred to the evidence of 1st, 2nd & 3rd Respondents on the process by which each of them secured admission into the Appellant University. He went on to say that Respondents satisfied the requirements for admission as stipulated in the JAMB/UME Brochure 2001/2002. He referred specifically to paragraphs 2.1.02 and 2.1.03 of Chapter 2 at page 3 of the Brochure. He submitted that page 114 of the JAMB/UME Brochure makes provision for the exception envisaged in paragraph 2.1.03 at page 3; He further submitted that the General Entry Requirements in paragraph 2.1.03 at page 3 of the Brochure envisages and is subordinate to the definite, precise and specific requirements for Public Health Education contained in page 114 of the Brochure. He submitted that the Respondents had complied with admission requirements relevant to their course of study in the JAMB/UME Brochure 2001/2002.
The Brochure that has constantly come under reference is styled U.M.E./DE BROCHURE issued by the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB). The 225 page document deals with the “Guidelines for Admissions to first degree courses in Nigerian Universities 2001/2002 session ‘printed in its front cover and was tendered in the course of proceedings in the High Court as Exhibit’. A look at page 114 of Exhibit ‘A’ lists Babcock University – the Appellant University as one of the nine Universities in Nigeria offering Health Education as a course under the Code No. 136310. It clearly states the requirement for that Course as 5’0′ level credits including English. Appellants’ Counsel had referred to the General Entry Requirements which he said included credit in Mathematics for all Science based courses, Public Health Education being one of such courses. Paragraphs 2.1.02 and 2.1.03 at page 3 of Exhibit ‘A’ dwell on this issue and are reproduced hereunder-
2.1.02 Candidates must in addition to attaining an acceptable standard in the Universities Matriculation Examination obtain one of the following qualifications:
(a) Senior School Certificate (SSC) or the School Certificate/General Certificate of Education Ordinary Level (SC/GCE O/Level) or equivalents with credits in Five (5) subjects relevant to the course and obtained at not more than two sittings;
(b) Grade II Teacher’s Certificate (TC II) with credit or merit passes in at least five (5) subjects;
(c) NABTEB Qualifications.
2.1.03-A credit in Mathematics is required for all Science based and Social Science Courses except where it is stated otherwise.
(Underlining mine for emphasis).
It is thus clear that although a credit in Mathematics is a general requirement for all Science or Science based Courses, and it is conceded that Public Health Education is a Science based course, the requirement of a credit in Mathematics will be dispensed with if it is specifically excluded. Thus as provided for at page 114 of Exhibit ‘A’, the admission requirement for Public Health Education is five (5) ‘a’ level credits including English. No mention was made of a credit in Mathematics. As to the question whether the Respondents were only given provisional admissions, the admission letters of PW1, PW3 and PW4 were tendered as Exhibits B, D and E respectively. Exhibits B, D & E which have the same content state as follows-
“OFFER OF PROVISIONAL ADMISSION TO FIRST DECREE PROGRAMMES
I am pleased to inform you that you have been offered provisional admission into Babcock University to pursue a first degree programme as follows-
Faculty/School/College:………
Department:…..
The confirmation of this offer is subject to your obtaining the minimum entry qualifications for the Course to which you have been offered admission, as well as fulfilling the Conditions spelt out below:
1. You are to pay the required Non-Refundable deposit of N50,000.00 by 24th August, 2001 which is part of the admission processes before Certification for Registration and Matriculation.
2. At the time of Registration you will be required to present the originals of the Certificates or any other. Acceptable evidence of the qualifications on which this offer of admission has been based as well as a testimonial from your school.
3. If it is discovered, at any time that you do not possess any of the qualifications which you claim to have obtained you will be required to withdraw from the university.
4. In the absence of a firm commitment from you as required in No. 1 above, it will be assumed that this offer of admission has been rejected. The institution thus reserves the right to withdraw the offer and accept a replacement application.
5. Information relating to the date of registration, Schedule of fees, accommodation facilities, medical examination and other pertinent details should be obtained from the University Registrar upon the presentation of a receipt for the Non-refundable deposit paid.
Accept my congratulations on your provisional admission.
REGISTRAR”
Appellant’s Counsel has made heavy weather yet again of the requirement as to minimum entry qualifications and to the presentation of originals of certificates and qualifications upon registration. I find it completely incomprehensible that a University such as the Appellants’ cannot exercise utmost diligence in its admission process and it is in this respect that I agree with the learned trial Judge that had there been any deficiency in the academic qualifications of the Respondents such deficiencies would have been detected during the Registration process and the Respondents should have been denied admission and I agree that this is a clear case when the provisions of section 149(d) of the Evidence Act should be invoked and the presumption is that at Registration the Respondents possessed and presented genuine and sufficient evidence of originals of their certificates to pursue a course in their chosen field. Five conditions were listed in Exhibits B, D and E for confirmation of admissions of PW1, PW3 and PW4 and as the Appellants have not strenuously argued that these conditions other than the qualifications have not been met, the only conclusion that I can draw in the circumstance is that the Respondents were fully admitted students of Babcock University. I am strengthened in this conviction by the fact that the Appellants attended lectures and were never stopped from doing so for four years during which period they took the internal examinations of the University and results were handed out to them by the authorities of the Appellant University.
They even paid fees and the fees were for four years collected from them by the authorities of the Appellant University. There was nothing in the conduct of the Appellants to show that the Respondent’s admission was provisional. I will therefore and do hereby resolve issues 1, 2 and 6 in favour of the Respondents against the Appellants.
Issue 3 is as to whether the Respondents are entitled to the plea of Estoppel to found this action.
Appellant has submitted that it is trite that a party seeking to rely on the plea of Estoppel must specifically plead it. Reliance was placed on EGBE V. ADEFARASIN (1987) NWLR PART 47 at 1; SOSAN V. ADEMUYIWA (1986) 3 NWLR PART 27 P. 241; OSHODI V. EYIFUNMI (2000) 13 NWLR PART 684 P. 298. It was submitted by the Appellants’ Counsel that since the Respondents did not plead estoppel, the Court cannot grant them what they did not ask for. Counsel referred to IHEANACHO V. CHIGENWE (2004) 48 WRN page 1 at 10 where the Supreme Court held as follows:
“It has been held times without number that it is not the duty of a Judge to make a case for the parties different from what they have pleaded and proffered in evidence themselves.”
Appellants submitted that though not conceded, even if estoppel has been proved it is used as a shield and not a sword as to found an action as in this case. Reliance was placed on FRIDAY ABALOGU V. SHELL PET. DEV. COY. OF NIG. LTD. (2003) 45 WRN 1.
In OBI IZEDIUNO EZEWANI THE OBI OF OGWASHI UKWU V. OBI NKADI ONWORDI & 3. ORS (1986) NWLR PART 33, page 27at 29, the Supreme Court held as follows:
“Although the old practice was that estoppel by record and deed must be pleaded where there was opportunity to do so, under the modern practice it is not however necessary to plead estoppel in any particular form so long as the matters constituting estoppel are stated in such, manner to show that the party pleading relies upon it as a defence or answer.”
See also CHINWENDU V. MBAMALI & ANOR (1980) 3-4 SC page 31 at 48. Thus modern legal thinking is that the courts will not allow themselves to be hampered by undue and unnecessary technicalities in their quest to do substantial justice. The issue is not therefore whether estoppel was pleaded specifically or not in a particular form, but whether there are sufficient facts in the pleadings which show that the pleader relies on it. In the present case there is need to have recourse to paragraph 17 of the statement of claim filed in the court below which states as follows:
“The Plaintiffs shall contend at the trial of this action that:
(i) Having met the requisite conditions for admission into the University, the authorities of the 1st Defendant cannot introduce new conditionalities 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 1st defendant to now ask them to furnish fresh requirements for admission when they had already completed their course of study in the Public Health Education of the University.”
As I had earlier stated, evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW4 which were never controverted was that for four years they had been paying fees to the Appellant institution which had been collecting such fees. They had also for the same period been attending lectures and writing the internal examinations of the Appellant institution and obtaining results without being turned back at the lecture rooms or any attempts made not to mark their scripts. All this had been going on until March 2005, some four years into their courses and three months before their graduation before being faced with new conditionalities. Issue No. 3 is therefore resolved in favour of the Respondents against the Appellants.
Issue 4 is as to whether the Appellants introduced new pre-requisites to the Respondents before they can graduate.
Appellants have submitted that they (the Appellants) were being lenient by asking the Respondent to fulfil their admission requirements rather than asking them to withdraw. I think that the point to consider here is whether the Respondent fulfilled the requirements for admission at the time of admission and not whether they should produce credits in Mathematics and Chemistry before they graduate which were novel conditionality introduced some four years into their course of study and barely three months to the date of graduation. As had earlier been noted, they had satisfied all conditions necessary for admission as stipulated in Exhibit A and had been admitted.
Issue 5 and 7 can be conveniently taken together. Issue 5 is as to whether Appellants acted erratically, impulsively and capriciously towards the Respondents and issue 7 is whether the trial Judge acted within the law when she ordered the Appellants to confer on the Respondents, the Bachelor of Science Degree of the Appellant University.
Appellants have submitted that asking the Respondents to fulfill admission requirements does not make the Appellant institution to be or to have acted erratically, impulsively and capriciously towards the Respondents. Appellants have also submitted that the trial Judge erred in law she ordered the Appellants to confer on the Respondents, the Appellant’s University’s Bachelor of Science degree in Public Health. Appellants further submitted that the law setting up the University empowers it to conduct its academic affairs; that the setting up of admission requirements and admission of students are domestic affairs of the University and since the courts do not issue University degrees, this is a matter internal to the university. Reliance was placed on WEST AFRICAN POSTGRADUATE MEDICAL COLLEGE & ORS V. OKOJIE (2003) 11 WRN 43 where the Court citing the judgment of the Supreme Court in AKINTEMI & ORS V. PROFESSOR ONWUMECHILI & ORS held as follows:
“The Courts cannot and will not usurp the functions of the Senate, the Council and the visitor of the University in the selection of their first and proper candidates for passing and for the awards of Certificates, Degrees and Diplomas.”
This is just as well except that the Appellant’s Counsel should have gone further to complete that very sentence of the erudite jurist Obaseki JSC when he continued to say as follows:
“If however in the process of performing their functions under the law, the civil rights and obligations of any of the students or candidates are breached, denied or abridged, it will grant remedies and reliefs for the protection of those rights and obligations.”
(Underlining mine for emphasis.)
The universities do not exist in isolation of the larger society whose needs they administer to, just as all other organs be they of government, private or whatever. Worldwide, the courts are and will continue to be a bastion of hope for all irrespective of colour, creed, political persuasion and status in life. The Appellants may -not have liked the -words erratic, impulsive or capricious in describing their conduct to the Respondents. There can be no doubt however that the conduct of the Appellants was reprehensible.
The Appeal fails and is dismissed and the judgment of O. O. Majekodunmi J. delivered on the 30th March, 2006 is hereby affirmed by me and should be given effect to without any further delay. There shall be N30,000.00 costs in favour of each of the Respondents against the Appellants.
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft the judgment of my learned brother, S. S. ALAGOA, J.C.A just delivered. He has ably and comprehensively addressed all the issues in contention in this appeal. I agree with his reasoning and conclusion. I also find no merit in this appeal. I accordingly dismiss it and hereby affirm the judgment of the High Court of Ogun State, sitting at Sagamu delivered on 30th March, 2006. appeal.
I abide by the order on costs.
SIDI DAUDA SAGE, J.C.A.: I have had the opportunity of reading in draft the lead Judgment of my learned brother, S. S. Alagoa, J.C.A, just delivered.
I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that the appeal lacks merit and should be dismissed. I dismiss same and abide by the consequential orders made in the lead Judgment including order on Costs.
Appearances
Paul C. Ananaba Esq.For Appellant
AND
Bowofade Aderemi Esq.For Respondent
