Can Courts Interfere with The Award of University Degree/Certificates?

CASE TITLE:  UNIPORT v. NWUZOR (2024) LPELR-62382(SC)

JUDGMENT DATE: 1ST MARCH, 2024

PRACTICE AREA: EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

LEAD JUDGMENT: HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on the justiciability of an action for the release of a result by a student of a university.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the majority judgment of the Court of Appeal, Port-Harcourt judicial division dismissing both the substantive Appeal of the Appellant, as well as the Cross-Appeal of the Respondent on April 19, 2016. The Court of Appeal by its decision, upheld the judgment of the Federal High Court Port-Harcourt judicial division delivered on December 14, 2010 by Hon. Justice G.K. Olotu.

The Appellant at all material times, is an institution of learning duly established by the University of Port-Harcourt Act, CAP. U. 13 Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2004. The primary function of the Appellant, as statutorily established, is to conduct academic training and award degrees and certificates to qualified and deserving students in terms of learning and character.

Contrariwise, the Respondent had attended the Appellant’s University for an undergraduate degree programme, successfully graduated, and was duly awarded his degree certificate.

The Respondent then applied and was duly admitted for a Master’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering (Petroleum and Gas) for the 1998–1999 academic year. The programme was for a minimum of 12 calendar months, and a maximum of 24 months. The Respondent was expected to conclude his programme around January 2001. However, he was unable to complete the programme within the maximum 24-month time frame. He finished around July 2002. He was issued a statement of results by the Department of Mechanical Engineering; subject to the issuance of a certificate by the Senate.

Around the year 2007, the Respondent consulted his solicitors, Freshfields Solicitors, who wrote a letter to the Appellant demanding the issuance of a master’s certificate. Consequentially, the Appellant constituted an investigation panel headed by Professor Nick Ofoka. The panel conducted an investigation regarding the matter. The Respondent was informed by the said professor, Nick Ofoka, that after the investigation they discovered that the Respondent did not score the minimum Cumulative Grade Point Aggregate (CGPA) for a pass. The Respondent deemed it expedient to file a suit at the trial Federal High Court via a writ of summons, dated March 3, 2009.

In response to the suit, the Appellant filed a statement of defence along with a preliminary objection on April 27, 2010.

The trial Court, touched by the spirit of reconciliation, advised the respective parties to embrace the veritable option of settlement out of Court. However, as the settlement process was partially successful, the trial Court deemed it expedient to proceed with the hearing of the matter on its merits. It equally ordered the hearing of the preliminary objection along with the substantive matter on merits.

The trial of the matter proceeded in earnest. Both parties called a single witness each. The learned Counsel addressed the Court and adopted the submissions contained in their respective written addresses, thereby delivering the vexed judgment by the trial Court where the Plaintiff’s claim for exemplary or punitive damages in the sum of N25 million was granted.

The trial Court, however, stated that the Respondent was not entitled to any award of aggravated damages and same was refused. The trial Court nonetheless proceeded to enter judgment in favour of the Respondent, against the Appellant in terms of some reliefs.

Not unnaturally, the Appellant was utterly dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, thus appealed to the Court of Appeal which affirmed the trial Court’s decision by a majority judgment, hence this further appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court considered whether the two lower Courts were right to assume jurisdiction and to grant the Respondent’s reliefs, including reliefs for exemplary and punitive damages, in the circumstances of this case.

DECISION/HELD:

In a split decision, Saulawa, JSC dissenting, the appeal was dismissed.

RATIOS:

• ACTION- CAUSE(S) OF ACTION: When does cause of action arise where there is a continuous injury or damage
• APPEAL- INTERFERENCE WITH AWARD OF DAMAGES: Circumstances in which an appellate court will not interfere with award of damages made by a trial Court
• COURT- JURISDICTION: Meaning and nature of jurisdiction
• DAMAGES- EXEMPLARY/AGGRAVATED DAMAGES: What a claimant must show to justify an award of exemplary or aggravated damages
• EDUCATION- AWARD OF DEGREE/CERTIFICATE BY THE UNIVERSITY: Difference between release of results and award of degree
• EDUCATION- RELEASE OF RESULT: Whether the court can interfere with the refusal of a University to release the result of a student
• EDUCATION- AWARD OF DEGREE/CERTIFICATE BY THE UNIVERSITY: Whether Courts can interfere with the award of university degree/certificates; exception(s) thereto
• EDUCATION- AWARD OF DEGREE/CERTIFICATE BY THE UNIVERSITY: Power of the University to award degree/certificate
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- ISSUE OF JURISDICTION: When can the issue of jurisdiction be raised
• PUBLIC OFFICER- PUBLIC OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT/LAW: Rationale and application of the Public Officers Protection Act
• TORT- TORT CLAIM: Meaning of tort

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol