Whether the Court Can Interfere Where a University Refuses to Issue a Certificate

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

JUDGMENT DATE: 1ST MARCH, 2024

JUSTICES: JOHN INYANG OKORO, JSC
HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, JSC
IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, JSC
TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, JSC
EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, JSC

PRACTICE AREA: EDUCATION

FACTS:

This appeal challenges the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Port-Harcourt judicial division, delivered on April 19, 2016.

The Appellant, the University of Port-Harcourt, is established by the University of Port-Harcourt Act, CAP. U. 13 Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2004, to conduct academic training and award degrees and certificates. The Respondent had graduated with an undergraduate degree from the Appellant’s university and was later admitted for a Master’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering (Petroleum and Gas) for the 1998–1999 academic year. The program’s duration was between 12 and 24 months, but the Respondent completed it in July 2002, exceeding the maximum timeframe.

In 2007, the Respondent’s solicitors requested the issuance of his master’s certificate, prompting the Appellant to investigate. The investigation revealed that the Respondent did not meet the minimum Cumulative Grade Point Aggregate (CGPA) required for a pass. Consequently, the Respondent filed a suit at the Federal High Court on March 3, 2009.

During the trial, the trial Court encouraged an out-of-court settlement, which was partially successful. The trial proceeded, and both parties presented their cases. The trial Court ultimately granted the Respondent’s claim for N25 million in exemplary damages but denied aggravated damages. Judgment was entered in favor of the Respondent for some relief.

Dissatisfied with the trial Court’s judgment, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the trial Court’s decision by a majority judgment. This led to the current appeal.

ISSUE(S) 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.

COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS:

Appellant’s Counsel argued that by granting claims (ii) and (v), the Court overstepped its bounds, stripping the Appellant of its statutory discretion to award degrees and certificates. Counsel contended that this effectively created a new law, contradicting established Court decisions that affirm the university’s authority to award degrees. The Counsel maintained that the lower Courts had usurped the Senate and Council’s functions, which are exclusively within the university’s domain.

Counsel emphasized that the case was not about releasing results but about awarding a Master’s Degree Certificate. Several precedents were cited, affirming that the awarding of degrees falls under the university’s domestic jurisdiction. Counsel argued that the Respondent’s suit stemmed from the Appellant’s alleged neglect to award the Master’s Degree after the Respondent completed his program in 2002. The Counsel contended that the cause of action was completed in 2002, and thus the suit should be time-barred under the Public Officers Protection Act. The Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the cause of action was continuous was also criticized.

Furthermore, Counsel challenged the award of 25 million Naira in exemplary damages, arguing that the lower Courts erroneously punished the Appellant for an issue outside their jurisdiction. It was insisted that the award was excessive and unjustified, as the Appellant had provided evidence that the Respondent failed to complete the necessary clearances for receiving his certificate.

In response, Learned Respondent’s Counsel argued that the Appellant failed to specifically deny the facts and claims made by the Respondent, which amounted to tacit admission. Counsel maintained that the Courts had jurisdiction since the Appellant’s actions had infringed upon the Respondent’s rights, necessitating redress.

Counsel argued that the injury to the Respondent was continuous until the Appellant failed to respond to the Respondent’s lawyer’s letter in January 2009. It was contended that the Appellant’s estoppel in law and equity precluded it from claiming the suit was out of time, as it had withheld the Respondent’s Master’s Degree Certificate until April 2010.

Respondent’s Counsel defended the exemplary damages, asserting there was no evidence of improper conduct by the Respondent or exaggerated suffering. Several cases were cited to support the argument that the award was justified and not excessive.

DECISION/HELD:

The appeal was dismissed. Saulawa, JSC, dissented.

RATIO:

EDUCATION – RELEASE OF RESULT: Whether the court can interfere with the refusal of a University to release the result of a student

“My Lords, in the circumstances of this case under review, the University never officially told the Respondent that he did not qualify. The University’s officials and lecturers kept looking for ways to justify the delay and to ostensibly rectify the situation for him. This was not a question of whether he did not qualify for the award of the certificate.

Interestingly, that was not the case made in its pleadings at trial and the evidence by the Appellant’s witnesses. The facts in UNILORIN v. ADESINA (SUPRA) are almost on all fours with this appeal. My Lords, there is a vast difference between award of degree and release of results. Where exams have been concluded and the student is told that he has passed and is awaiting his certificate as proof of his success to the world at large, it is the certificate that proves to the world that the student has fulfilled all conditions precedent for the award of the certificate. My Lords, during the trial, on April 14, 2010, the Appellant brought to Court and handed over to the Respondent his Master’s Degree Certificate, proving decisively that in fact the Respondent had completed and qualified for the certificate. I have to concur with the ratio of this Court in UNILORIN v. ADESINA (SUPRA) that the refusal of the Appellant to give the Respondent his result or certificate has taken the cause of action from the issue of the independence of the institution to award a degree or certificate and the discretion to determine a student’s qualification and transformed it to a matter of refusal to publish the result of a student who had passed the exams and scored the correct marks and has not been disqualified by the institution and has transcended to a matter of public policy, which is no longer the domestic affair of the university. The independence of the institution to determine who is qualified and to whom it can award its degrees or certificates has been transformed into the issue of blatant refusal without any published just cause to release the certificate of a student who had apparently successfully completed his course of study. The issue was now one of the violations of the right of the Respondent and was no longer the domestic affair of the university into which the Courts would interfere. The award of degrees and certificates should be done in accordance with the law setting up the University and according to international best practices. Also, the publication and transmission of results or certificates to successful students should not be at the whims and caprices of the personnel saddled with this responsibility. See AKINTEMI v. ONWUEMECHILI (SUPRA), UNIVERSITY OF CALABAR v. ESIAGA (SUPRA) and UNILORIN v. ADESINA (SUPRA). The facts of this case being one in which the Courts are obliged to interfere, that point in issue is resolved against the Appellant.” Per OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.

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