MISS ALBERTA OMOBOLAJI ADEOGUN V. UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN & ANOR
(2012)LCN/5272(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 29th day of March, 2012
CA/I/78/09
RATIO
EVIDENCE: WHAT IS ESTOPPEL BUILT ON
Estoppel is built on truth nurtured or nourished by utmost good faith. If at all a party were to be accused of the breach it should be the appellant who used spurious result to obtain admission to read law with the 1st respondent university. A case in point is the old English case of Cave v. Mill (1862) 7 H and N 913 at 927-924 where Baron Wilde aptly held –
“A man shall not be allowed to blow hot and cold – to affirm at one time and deny at another – making a claim on those whom he has deluded to their disadvantage, and founding that claim on the very matters of the delusion. Such a principle has its basis in common sense and common justice, and whether it is called ‘estoppel’ or by any other name, it is one which Courts of Law have in modern times most usefully adopted.” PER JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A.
ACTION: ATTITUDE OF THE COURT TOWARDS ACADEMIC MATTERS
Academic matters should therefore be left alone for academicians to handle in their own wisdom and expertise upon which the benefit of the doubt should be given them based on their sense of judgment. The court cannot, in my humble view, decide who the 1st respondent University should graduate and the grades the graduand should have – See Thorne v. University of London (1966) 1 ALL E.R. 338, Akintemi & Ors v. Professor Onwumechili & Ors. (1985) 1 NWLR (pt. 1) 68 and Magit v. University of Agriculture Makurdi (2005) 19 NWLR (pt.959) 211. PER JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A.
JUSTICES:
STANLEY SHENKO ALAGOA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MODUPE FASANMI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
MISS ALBERTA OMOBOLAJI ADEOGUN – Appellant(s)
AND
1. UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN
2. WEST AFRICAN EXAMINATIONS COUNCIL – Respondent(s)
STANLEY SHENKO ALAGOA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court Ibadan delivered on the 20th March 2008 by Molokwu J. in suit No. FHC/IB/CS/41/2000 wherein the Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed. By an amended statement of claim dated 30th May 2003 amended pursuant to an order of Court of the same date, the Plaintiff (now Appellant) claimed as per paragraph 27 the following –
(i) Declaration that the failure or refusal of the 1st Defendant to release the 1998/99 final LL.B Degree examination result of the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s school certificate qualification is deficient, notwithstanding the 2nd Defendant’s confirmation of the school certificate results of the plaintiff to the contrary, is wrongful, irregular, unreasonable and unconstitutional.
(ii) An order directing the 2nd Defendant to re-confirm forthwith to the 1st Defendant the results of the plaintiff in the May/June 1992 SSCE Examination.
(iii) An order directing the 1st Defendant to release forthwith the results of the Plaintiff in the 1998/99 Final LL.B Degree Examination.
(iv) Damages
(v) INJUNCTION restraining the 1st Defendant from further refusing or failing to release the Plaintiff’s final LL.B Degree Examination Result.
(vi) DECLAMTION that the 2nd Defendant is estopped by her acts from denying that the Plaintiff passed her May/June 1992 SSCE Examination with credit in five subjects.
The 1st & 2nd Defendants the University of Ibadan and the West African Examinations Council who are now the 1st and 2nd Respondents in this appeal filed their respective pleadings and the case went on to be tried with the parties calling evidence and tendering exhibits. In its considered judgment the Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s (now Appellant’s) claims. The facts as averred by the Appellant in her amended statement of claim are that she was a student of the 1st Defendant (1st Respondent in this appeal) the University of Ibadan and wrote her final LL.B. degree examination at the end of the 1998/99 academic year. She had sometime in 1992 earlier passed her secondary school leaving certificate examination with credits in five subjects as disclosed by a review of the 2nd Defendant (2nd Respondent in this appeal) the West African Examinations Council of her papers in the examination following a protest of the Appellant’s secondary school. The Appellant was admitted into the 1st Respondent’s institution in October 1992 for a four year LL.B degree programme. In accordance with the requirement of the 1st Respondent, the 2nd Respondent confirmed the Appellant’s school certificate result direct to the 1st Respondent after the Appellant’s admission. In April 1993, the 1st Respondent issued a certification of the Appellant’s admission into full time degree programme following the confirmation of her results referred to by the 2nd Respondent.
In 1995 the 1st Respondent again confirmed the Appellant’s status as a bona fide student of the 1st Respondent as shown in the student identification form completed on the occasion. The Appellant eventually finished her course in 1998/99 session with a third class honours degree as she was told in the Dean’s office of the 1st Respondent’s Faculty of law as the result had not been officially released, On inquiry as to why her name was not included in the results officially released, the Appellant was told to see one Mr. Ajayi of the Student Affairs Division of the 1st Respondent who had earlier left a note in the Dean’s Office requesting the Appellant to see him in his office. When she did so Mr. Ajayi informed her that her results were withheld because of the deficiency in her school certificate result as revealed in the new album of the 2nd Respondent West African Examinations Council, and when the Appellant denied this she was asked to see Mrs. Ikotun the Admissions officer who was then not in the office. When Mrs. Ikotun declined to see her, the Appellant took her case to the Vice Chancellor of the 1st Respondent institution and one Mr. Agbede an officer of the 1st Respondent was in the Vice Chancellor’s office at the time and he (Mr. Agbede) restated that from the new album obtained from the 2nd Respondent, the Appellant obtained two instead of five credits in the 1992 school certificate exam result. Appellant then went on to explain to the Vice Chancellor of the 1st Respondent University how her Principal had requested for a review of her result and how same was done with the school later issuing a statement of her result which showed the reviewed results. Impressed by the Appellant’s explanation, the 1st Respondent’s Vice Chancellor requested the Appellant to furnish him with a copy of her school request for a review of her result and the reviewed result from the 2nd Respondent institution which she did and the Vice Chancellor minuted them to Mrs. Ikotun to take action on them which Mrs. Ikotun refused to do despite pleas from her father to provide a car and a driver to take her (Mrs. Ikotun) to the office of the 2nd Respondent in Lagos to verify the result of the Appellant’s school. The Appellant would have gone to meet the 2nd Respondent on her own but in the then prevailing circumstances, it would be better for the 1st Respondent University to do so.
The Appellant had by the conduct of the 1st Respondent’s Mrs. Ikotun missed two admissions to the Nigerian Law School and would miss a third except the 1st Respondent was compelled to release the results. The Appellant has by the conduct of the 1st Respondent suffered substantial damage.
The 1st and 2nd Respondents in their separate statements of defence denied the averments in the Appellant’s claim. The 1st Respondent for its part avered that the Appellant had while seeking admission to the 1st Respondent institution claimed that she possessed five credits in her school certificate exams results upon which she was provisionally admitted but a computer print out from the 2nd Respondent West African Examinations Council showed that she had two and not five credits which was short of the minimum entry qualifications to pursue the LL.B degree course in the 1st Respondent institution which required a minimum of five credits in the school certificate exams results. The 1st Respondent wrote to the 2nd Respondent to ascertain the authenticity of the Appellant’s claim. The 2nd Respondent wrote to the 1st Respondent to say that the purported review communicated by the 2nd Respondent and presented as statement of result by the Appellant for admission was forged. The 1st Respondent averred that the Appellant having had only two credits had not met the requirements for admission to the 1st Respondent institution and the 1st Respondent legitimately refused to release Appellant’s final results having become aware of this deficiency. The 1st Respondent also averred that its degrees were awarded to persons who had been found worthy in character and learning.
In its own pleadings the 2nd Respondent denied that the Appellant passed the Senior Secondary School Certificate Examination in 1992 with credits in five subjects as claimed. The 2nd Respondent also denied receiving any request for a review of the Appellant’s results or that the Appellant’s result was reviewed or that any such review was communicated to anyone by the 2nd Respondent or at all. The 2nd Respondent also averred that it is impossible to carry out such a review within the time frame indicated by the Appellant in her documents. The 2nd Respondent further averred that there was no basis for a review of the Appellant’s results as the previous year’s result showed a dismal performance by the Appellant in the senior school certificate exams. The 2nd Respondent denied confirming the purported reviewed result referred to by the Appellant, stating further that the documents purporting to emanate from the 2nd Respondent were neither issued by it nor signed by any of its staff nor were they issued during the course of the 2nd Respondent’s official operations or duties. The 2nd Respondent denied the signatures on those documents. The 2nd Respondent went on further to say that it owed no duty to certify the results of the Appellant to the 1st Respondent or to anyone at all and denied any purported certification claimed by the Appellant.
Aggrieved by the Judgment of the trial High Court, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on the 23rd May, 2008.
Contained at pages 104-106 of the Record of Appeal the Notice of Appeal consists of five Grounds of Appeal reproduced hereunder with attendant particulars viz-
GROUND 1 – The Learned trial Judge erred when she held that the plaintiff’s failure to prove receipt by the 2nd Defendant of Exhibit “F” WAEC letter of Review of Plaintiff’s result was fatal to the Plaintiff’s case.
PARTICULARS
(i) The Learned trial Judge wrongly placed the onus of receipt of Exhibit “F” on the Plaintiff.
(ii) There was no material evidence before the trial court to disprove the receipt of Exhibit “F”.
GROUND 2 – The Learned trial Judge misdirected herself when she failed to resolve the material contradictions in Exhibits “A”, “J” and “K” all being WAEC Results in favour of the Plaintiff.
PARTICULARS
(i) Exhibits “A”, “J” and “K” indicate different results with various grades issued to Plaintiff by the 2nd Defendant/Respondent for the same O’ Level May/June 1992 SSCE Examinations.
(ii) The contradictions in Exhibits “A”, “J” and “K” should have weighed on the learned trial Judge’s mind to hold 2nd Defendant is estopped from asserting that Plaintiff did not pass her O’ level May/June 1992 SSCE Examinations.
GROUND 3
The learned trial Judge misdirected herself when she placed heavy reliance on DW3’s evidence and therefore came to a wrong conclusion by discountenancing Exhibits “M”, “F” and “G” and “N”.
PARTICULARS
(i) DW3 is WAEC official who admitted under cross-examination he has never worked in Lagos Office of the 2nd Defendant. Therefore DW3’s oral evidence challenging the authenticity of Exhibits “G”, “F” and “M” should have been believed by the lower court.
(ii) Notwithstanding the admissibility and confirmation of Exhibit “M” as emanating from the 2nd Defendant the trial Judge still did not believe the authenticity of Exhibit “M” based on DW3’s evidence.
GROUND 4 The learned trial Judge erred when she held Estoppel cannot be sustained because Plaintiff had not satisfied admission requirements.
PARTICULARS
(i) From the evidence on record, estoppel is a proper prayer which the learned trial Judge should have
upheld.
(ii) Estoppel is a shield and not a sword and the burden of disproving it is on the Defendants in this instance.
GROUND 5 – The Judgment is against the weight of evidence. Further Grounds of Appeal shall be filed on receipt of the Record of proceedings.
RELIEFS SOUGHT-
AN ORDER allowing this appeal and granting the plaintiffs claim at the lower court.
From these Grounds of Appeal, the Appellant distilled in her Brief of Argument dated 15th June 2009 and filed same day the following two issues for the determination of the Court of Appeal –
(i) whether the learned trial Judge properly considered the evidence on record before arriving at his judgment.
(ii) whether the learned trial Judge was right in failing to hold from the evidence on record that the 2nd Defendant was estopped from denying that the plaintiff had five credits in the May/June 1992 School Certificate Examination.
The 1st Respondent – the university of Ibadan in its Brief of Argument dated the 8th June 2010 and filed on the 30th November 2010 via an application dated the 8th June 2010, filed on the 11th June 2010 and granted on the 24th November 2010 wherein the 1st Respondent was given 7 days to file its Brief of Argument, formulated the following two issues for the determination of this Court –
(i) Whether the Learned trial Judge made a correct approach to the evidence tendered by all the parties
to the case.
(ii) Whether having considered the evidence tendered by all the parties to this case the learned trial Judge decided rightly.
The 2nd Respondent the West African Examinations Council in its own Brief of Argument dated 13th July 2009 and filed on the 14th July 2009 formulated the following two issues for this Court’s determination –
1. Whether the learned trial Judge properly considered the evidence adduced by all the parties in this case before arriving at his judgment.
2. Whether the doctrine of estoppel is applicable in this case.
On the 23rd January, 2012 this appeal came up for hearing. The various Counsel adopted and relied on their respective Briefs of Argument. Olugbenga Makinde with him Femi Pedro for the Appellant urged this Court to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. Ayo Arowosafe and O. B. Adeshokan appearing as Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents respectively also urged us to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the trial High Court below.
I consider the proper issues for the determination of this appeal as –
1. whether the learned trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence of the parties in arriving at its decision.
2. whether the doctrine of estoppels applies in this case.
Most germane to the discussion and determination of issue 1 and indeed this appeal is Exhibit “G” and what to make of it. It is the purported review of the May/June 1992 Senior School Certificate examination result of the Appellant Miss. Omobolaji Alberta Adeogun purportedly carried out by the 2nd Respondent the West African Examinations Council (WAEC) which shot up her grades in English Language from P7 to C6; English Literature from P7 to C6 and Government from P7 to C5. The document dated the 12th December 1992 is addressed to the Principal Abe Secondary Technical School P.M.B. 5695 Ibadan. What purportedly gave rise to Exhibit “G” is Exhibit “F” which is a letter dated 2nd December 1992 from the principal of the Appellant’s Secondary School, Abe Secondary Technical School, appealing for a review of the three subjects named above. Both Exhibit “A” tendered through the Appellant and Exhibit “J” tendered through DW1, O. O, Soyanwo, a principal Executive Officer in the Registry of the 2nd Respondent are to the effect that the Appellant had only two credits in Christian Religious Studies and Mathematics (C6 in each of the subjects) in the SSCE Exams. Exhibit “H” which was also tendered through DW1 and is the reply from the 2nd Respondent upon enquiry of the Appellant’s result in the SSCE Exams also stipulates that the Appellant had credits (C6) only in C.R.S. and Mathematics. Two credits in the May/June 1992 SSCE Exams was therefore the result that the Appellant was at all times before any purported review known to have had. If the purported review stated in Exhibit “G” and highlighted in Exhibit “M” as well is to the effect that Exhibit “G” was forged the onus of proving this forgery cannot be on the Respondents.
To that extent the case of ADEWA v. AHDE (1996) 6 NWLR (PART 608) 544 at 557 relied upon by the Appellant does not apply here. Some of the reasons given by the 2nd Respondent why Exhibit “G” is not genuine but forged are as stated in Exhibit “O” and are as follows –
(a) Fake WAEC logo
(b) Fake reference No. L/SDR/CSD/02/Vo1.6/5/90 which has never been used as reference style of WAEC.
(c) The purported signature of Mr. Oke was forged
Other reasons which were advanced in the course of evidence of the Respondents’ witnesses DW1 and DW2 and the cross-examination of the Appellant are that the 12th December 1992 when Exhibit “G” was written is a Saturday.
When the Appellant and PW2 her Secondary School Principal were asked in cross-examination whether they were not aware that the 12th December 1992 when Exhibit “G” was purportedly written is a Saturday their answer was evasive. At page 217 of the record of Appeal, when the Appellant as PW1 was cross-examined as to whether she agreed that 12th December 1992 was a Saturday her answer was “As you say”.
PW2 Gbolahon Waheed Adeyemo who claimed to have been the Appellant’s teacher at Abe Secondary Technical College claimed under cross-examination at page 222 of the Records to have sent the letter for a review of the Appellant’s result Exhibit “F” by hand through the School Typist. Still under cross-examination at page 228 of the Records, it was put to PW2 that the Typist did not deliver the letter – Exhibit “F” to the 2nd Respondent WAEC his answer was that the typist confirmed that he delivered Exhibit “F” to the 2nd Respondent.
The next question put to PW2 under cross-examination was whether as a civil servant it was enough to believe the oral confirmation of the delivery of the letter. His answer was that the typist was such that he did not doubt that he delivered the letter Exhibit “F” to the 2nd Respondent. This to say the least is ridiculous because the 2nd Respondent has consistently denied receipt of Exhibit “F”. Is it not normal for the typist to have been given an acknowledgement slip of Exhibit “F” by the 2nd Respondent? And the typist was never called to give evidence.
The only conclusion left to be drawn is that the Appellant knew that if the typist had been called to give evidence, his evidence would have been detrimental to the case of the Appellant, The 2nd Respondent also consistently denied the receipt of Exhibit “G” the purported review of the result of the Appellant’s SSCE result and the following cross-examination of PW2 at page 229 of the Record ensued –
Question Exhibit “G” was it posted to your school?
Answer I do not know how it was delivered.
Question Exhibit “G” has the date 12/12/92 was it a Saturday?
Answer – I do not know.
Question What date was Exhibit “G” delivered to your School?
Answer – I do not know.
This is ludicrous. The teachers of the Appellant and the principal of her School had in Exhibit “F” expressed concern over her poor result in the SSCE exams and Exhibit “G” from the 2nd Respondent had now purportedly emerged to rectify the perceived anomaly in her grades and yet PW2 cannot say how Exhibit “G” was delivered to his School and when. This line of evidence had also been given by the Appellant as PW1 earlier at page 203 of the record. When she was asked whether she knew that Exhibit “F” was actually delivered to the 2nd Respondent, her answer was yes. When she was asked whether she was present when Exhibit “F” was delivered to the 2nd Respondent her answer, was no. When asked who delivered Exhibit “F” her response was that she did not know, At page 204 of the Records, Appellant’s evidence as PW1 is that the West African Examinations Council did a review of her May/June 1992 SSCE results and that Exhibit “G” is the letter conveying that review. When asked under cross-examination whether she knew how Exhibit “G” was delivered to her Principal her answer was that she did not know. When it was put to her under cross-examination that Exhibit “G” is not from the West African Examinations Council she said that wasn’t true but admitted that there is no name on Exhibit “G” but only a signature. The absence of the name of the signatory to Exhibit “G” is what the 2nd Respondent has stated in evidence as an anomaly and even the purported signature on Exhibit “G” that of Mr. Oke is forged. The purpose of cross-examination is to ascertain the veracity of a claim made by a party and it cannot be said that Exhibit “G” emanated from the 2nd Respondent. In paragraph 5.6 at page 5 of the Appellant’s brief of Argument, Appellant stated that Exhibit “F” which was the letter requesting for review of the Appellant’s result carried a clear indication that a draft of seven hundred and fifty naira was enclosed to cover the cost of reviewing three subjects and where evidence of payment of money is not challenged that will be sufficient proof. DAKAT v. DASHE (1997) 12 NWLR (PART 531) 46 at 54 was relied upon in support of that assertion. The position of the 2nd Respondent as has been previously highlighted here and as borne out by the evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses is a consistent denial that the said Exhibit “F” was ever received by the 2nd Respondent and so any draft of a sum of money enclosed with Exhibit “F’ could also not have been received. In any case the submission by the Appellant that there was no evidence from the Respondents that such fee was not paid to the 2nd is misconceived for the same reason that a receipt is evidence of such payment. The burden of proof still lies on the Appellant and does not shift to the Respondents to show payment of any sums of money for the review of the Appellant’s SSCE Exam results. Appellant has submitted that in deciding a case a trial Judge must carry out a thorough review of the evidence before him. The cases of MOGAJI V. ODOFIN (1976) 4 SC AT 67; LAMBE V. JOLAYEMI (2002) FWLR (PART 96) 414 at 424; DALFAM NIG. LTD. V. OKAKU INTERNATIONAL LTD. (2000) FWLR (PART 96) 501 at 531 were relied upon. This is well said. The learned trial Judge as has been seen did carry out the proper evaluation of the evidence placed before the Court.
The second issue deals with estoppel. The Appellant in her amended statement of claim had asked for a declaration that “the 2nd Defendant (2nd Respondent in this appeal) be estopped by her acts from denying that the Plaintiff (Appellant in this appeal) passed her May/June 1992 SSCE Examination with credit in five subjects.”
The Appellant in paragraph 6.5 at page 10 of the Appellant’s Brief of Argument has submitted that it is settled on the authorities that a plea of estoppel will avail where one by his words or conduct wilfully causes another to believe the existence of certain state of things and induces him to act on that belief so as to alter his own previous position, the former is precluded from averring against the latter a different state of things as existing at the same time. Reliance was placed on the cases of NSIRIM V. NSIRIM (2002) FWLR (PT. 96) 433 AT 445-445; IKPUKU V. IKPUKU (1991) 5 NWLR (PART 193) 571 at 591. The paramount question here is whether the plea of estoppel as properly defined here can be said to apply in this case now under consideration. At all material times Appellant by her own very admission as highlighted in her evidence and in Exhibit “A” tendered by her had only two credits in CRS and Mathematics in the May/June 1992 Senior School Certificate Exams. Evidence adduced by the Respondents are in support of the fact that she had only two credits instead of the five credits that she would have required to pursue an LL.B degree course in Law in the 2nd Respondent institution apart from the fact also that she had to abide by all the University Regulations and be found worthy in character and learning in order to qualify for the award of the 2nd Respondent’s degree in Law. The first clause of Exhibit “B” which is the offer of provisional admission to the 2nd Respondent’s institution is that the confirmation of the offer of provisional admission is subject to her obtaining the minimum entry qualifications for the course to which she had been offered admission as well as fulfilling the conditions spelt out in Exhibit “B” amongst which it is stated in Clause 4 of Exhibit “B” as follows,
“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.
She claimed to have had Exhibit “F” written by her former Principal in the Secondary School Abe Secondary Technical School on her behalf requesting that her result which recorded only two credits be reviewed. The 2nd Respondent denied ever receiving Exhibit “F” and the Appellant could not prove that the 2nd Respondent ever received Exhibit “F”. Even the typist who was alleged to have personally handed Exhibit “F” to the 2nd Respondent by the evidence of PW2 her former principal, was not called by the Appellant to say when and how he delivered Exhibit “F” to the 2nd Respondent. There is no receipt of Exhibit “F” by the 2nd Respondent. The purported receipt of Exhibit “F” by the 2nd Respondent was said by the Appellant to have led to the emergence of Exhibit “G” which is a purported review of the Appellant’s SSCE May/June 1992 Exam results from two credits to five credits. The 2nd Respondent denied receipt of Exhibit “G” and the Appellant could not prove that Exhibit “G” was ever received by the 2nd Respondent.
Examination of Exhibit “G” by the 2nd Respondent showed a catalogue of flaws and that the said Exhibit “G” did not emanate or originate from the 2nd Respondent and that it was forged. These lapses had to do with but not limited to the following facts –
(a) The Logo on Exhibit “G” did not belong to the 2nd Respondent institution.
(b) Exhibit “G” was dated 12 December 1992 a Saturday when the 2nd Respondent does not go to work.
(c) The reference No. L/SDR/CSD/02/Vol .615/90 was completely alien to the 2nd Respondent.
(d) The name of the officer who signed Exhibit “G” was not stated and even the signature was identified as a forged version of Mr. Oke an officer of the 2nd Respondent.
These pieces of evidence from the 2nd Respondents witnesses were not tainted by the cross-examination of the Appellant. An attempt also by the Appellant to portray Exhibits “M” and “N” as reflecting the new and reviewed results also failed. Where then does the plea of estoppel fit in?
The appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed and the judgment of Molokwu J. delivered on the 20th March 2008 is hereby affirmed. Parties are to bear their own costs.
MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading before now the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother S. S, Alagoa J.C.A OFR.
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 therein including costs.
JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A.: I am in agreement with the painstaking judgment prepared by my learned brother, Alagoa, J.C.A., which I had the privilege of reading in advance.
From the credible evidence accepted by the court below, it was the appellant that misled the 1st respondent into believing she had the minimum educational qualification that gained her admission to read first degree course in law with the 1st respondent university. It turned out the appellant passed off her educational qualification. She breached the trust to present only genuine and true educational qualification to be admitted as undergraduate with the 1st respondent. Estoppel is built on truth nurtured or nourished by utmost good faith. If at all a party were to be accused of the breach it should be the appellant who used spurious result to obtain admission to read law with the 1st respondent university. A case in point is the old English case of Cave v. Mill (1862) 7 H and N 913 at 927-924 where Baron Wilde aptly held –
“A man shall not be allowed to blow hot and cold – to affirm at one time and deny at another – making a claim on those whom he has deluded to their disadvantage, and founding that claim on the very matters of the delusion. Such a principle has its basis in common sense and common justice, and whether it is called ‘estoppel’ or by any other name, it is one which Courts of Law have in modern times most usefully adopted.”
Moreover, the appellant’s letter of admission, Exhibit ‘B’, to read law in the 1st respondent University conveyed provisional offer of admission reserving the right in the 1st respondent University to require the appellant to withdraw from the 1st respondent University in the event it was discovered at any point in time she did not have the requisite qualification to enter the 1st respondent University as an undergraduate.
Consequently, the court below was right to reject the plea of estoppels which should normally be a shield for the defence not a sword in the hand of a claimant.
Academic excellence is the soul and body or hallmark of educational institutions. The modus operandi of an academic institution as the 1st respondent University of ensuring only candidates with valid minimum qualification are admitted to read any course in 1st respondent University should not be subjected to control by the court: It is a specialised area exclusively reserved for those imbued with the training to scrutinise and oversee without looking over their shoulders.
Academic matters should therefore be left alone for academicians to handle in their own wisdom and expertise upon which the benefit of the doubt should be given them based on their sense of judgment. The court cannot, in my humble view, decide who the 1st respondent University should graduate and the grades the graduand should have – See Thorne v. University of London (1966) 1 ALL E.R. 338, Akintemi & Ors v. Professor Onwumechili & Ors. (1985) 1 NWLR (pt. 1) 68 and Magit v. University of Agriculture Makurdi (2005) 19 NWLR (pt.959) 211.
For these reasons and the fuller reasons in the lead judgment of my learned brother, Alagoa, J.C.A., (O.F.R.), I too find no merit in the appeal. I dismiss it and abide by the consequential orders contained in the said judgment.
Appearances
Chief Akin Olujinmi SAN For Appellant
AND
Chief Ladosu Ladapo SAN with Ayo Arowosafe Esq. for the 1st Respondent;
Doye Olugbemi Esq. with O.B. Adeshokan Esq. for the 2nd Respondent. For Respondent
