UNIPORT v. Nwuzor. Citation: (2024) LPELR-62382(SC)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
On Friday, 1st March, 2024
Suit No: SC.1066/2016
Before their Lordships:
John Inyang Okoro, Justice of the Supreme Court
Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju,
Justice of the Supreme Court
Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa,
Justice of the Supreme Court
Tijjani Abubakar, Justice of the Supreme Court
Emmanuel Akomaye Agim,
Justice of the Supreme Court
Between
University Of Port Harcourt – Appellant(s)
And
Mr. Edwin Chira Nwuzor – Respondent(s)
Lead Judgment delivered
by Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, J.S.C.
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. The Court of Appeal by its decision, upheld the judgment of the Federal High Court Port-Harcourt judicial division delivered on 14/12/2010 by Hon. Justice G.K. Olotu.
The Appellant, the University of Port Harcourt, is a statutory institution responsible for academic training and the award of degrees. The Respondent, having completed his undergraduate studies there, was admitted in 1998/1999 for a Master’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering (Petroleum and Gas), which he completed in July 2002, outside the prescribed 24-month period. He was issued a statement of result, subject to Senate approval and issuance of the certificate.
In 2007, the Respondent demanded his Master’s certificate through his solicitors. Following an investigation, the University informed him that he had failed to attain the minimum CGPA required for the award. He consequently instituted an action at the Federal High Court in 2009. After trial, the Court awarded him N25 million in exemplary/punitive damages and granted other reliefs, although it refused aggravated damages.
The University appealed, however, the Court of Appeal, by majority decision, affirmed the trial Court’s judgment. Dissatisfied, the University lodged a further appeal to the Supreme Court.
Issues for determination
The Court considered whether the two lower Courts were right to assume jurisdiction and to grant the Respondent’s reliefs including the reliefs for exemplary and punitive damages in the circumstances of this case.
Appellant’s submission
Learned Appellant’s Counsel submitted that the majority decision of the Court of Appeal was based on facts elicited under cross-examination which were not pleaded by the Respondent, and therefore went beyond the issues joined by the parties. Counsel maintained that the Respondent’s pleaded case was that he had passed his examinations and had been issued a result, not that his result was awaiting Senate confirmation. Evidence even if elicited under cross-examination which does not arise from the facts pleaded goes to no issue. Counsel relied on BEN E. CHIDOKA & ANOR v. FIRST CITY FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED (2013) ALL FWLR, Pt. 659; (2012) LPELR-9343(SC) and SAMCHASE NIGERIA LIMITED v. ALHAJI SAKA GIDADO (2014) ALL FWLR Pt. 760; (2014) LPELR-68758(CA).
Counsel further argued that the lower Courts, by granting the Respondent’s reliefs, usurped the statutory discretion of the University’s Senate and Council to determine who qualifies for the award and issuance of degrees and certificates. The suit, Counsel contended, concerned the award of a Master’s Degree Certificate, rather than the release of an already established result, and such determination falls within the domestic jurisdiction of the University. Reliance was placed on MAGIT v. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE MAKURDI (2006) ALL FWLR, Pt. 298 and UNILORIN v. ADESINA (2014) 10 NWLR Pt. 1414; (2014) LPELR-23019(SC).
On limitation of action, Counsel submitted that Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act Cap P41 LFN, 2004 is applicable because the alleged failure to issue the certificate constituted a completed cause of action dating back to 2002, when the Respondent completed his programme and allegedly expected to receive the certificate. Counsel rejected the lower Court’s characterization of the cause of action as continuous.
Counsel also challenged the N25 million exemplary damages awarded, arguing that the award was founded on the erroneous premise that the University had unlawfully withheld the Respondent’s certificate for eight years. He maintained that there was no legal or evidential basis for the award, particularly as evidence showed that the Respondent himself had failed to complete the necessary academic and administrative clearance required to obtain his certificate.
In conclusion, Counsel urged the Court to reject the lower Courts’ findings, uphold the University’s statutory authority over the award of academic certificates, and set aside the N25,000,000.00 exemplary damages as legally and evidentially unjustified.
Respondent’s submission
Learned Respondent’s Counsel submitted that the Respondent had fully established his pleaded case before the Appellant filed its defence, which merely contained a general traverse and failed to specifically deny the material allegations. Counsel argued that such general denials amounted to tacit admissions of the Respondent’s pleaded facts. Reliance was placed on LEWIS & PEAT (NRI) LTD v. A.B AKHIMIEM 1976 7 SC 157; (1976) LPELR-1864(SC), T. LAWAL OWOSHO v. DADA 1984 7 S.C 149-183; (1984) LPELR-79740(SC), NNPC & ANOR v. CHIEF STEPHEN ORHIOWA SELE (PT. 223); (2013) LPELR-24710(SC), CROWN FLOUR MILLS & v. PASTOR KUNLE ALUKO OLOKUN (2007) ALL FWLR (pt. 393); (2007) LPELR-8534(CA).
Counsel contended that the Courts had jurisdiction to entertain the Respondent’s claim because the Appellant had allegedly violated his rights, leaving him with no reasonable alternative but to seek judicial redress. Reliance was placed on UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN v. STEPHEN AKINOLA 2008 ALL FWLR (pt. 413); (2007) LPELR-64629(CA), AKINTEMI v. ONWUEMECHILI 1985 NWLR (pt. 1); (1985) LPELR-357 (SC), UNIVERSITY OF CALABAR v. ESIAGA (1997) 4 NWLR (pt. 502), UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN v. RASHEED ADESINA (2014) 10 NWLR (pt. 1414); (2014) LPELR-23019(SC).
Counsel further argued that the Respondent suffered continuing injury and damage until the Appellant finally released his certificate following the proceedings of 14/4/2010. The evidence of such continuing injury was allegedly unchallenged and therefore required no further proof. Counsel cited OBA GORIOLA OSENI & ORS v. YAKUBU DAWODU & 2 ORS (1994) 4 S.C.N.J (Pt. 11) 197; (1994) LPELR-2795(SC), CHIEF E.S. YESUFU & ANOR v. KUPPE INTERNATIONAL N.V 1996 4 S.C.N.J 40; (1996) LPELR-3519(SC), A.G. RIVERS STATE v. A.G BAYELSA STATE & ANOR 2012 FWLR (Pt. 316); (2012) LPELR-9336(SC).
It was also submitted that the Appellant was estopped in law and equity from asserting that the action was statute-barred while simultaneously retaining the Respondent’s certificate until its eventual release. Counsel relied on UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN v. OLUFEMI IBUKUN DUNMADE (2013) LPELR-21383(CA), PAUL NWADIKE v. CLETUS IBEKWE (1987) S.C 1; (1987) LPELR-2087(SC).
Finally, Counsel argued that it is wrong for the Appellant to criticize the award of exemplary damages since there was no evidence of improper conduct on the part of the Respondent or that the estimate of damages for his suffering was exaggerated. Reliance was placed on MERCANTILE BANK OF NIGERIA PLC & ANOR v. LINUS NWOBODO 2005 ALL FWLR (Pt.281); (2005) LPELR-1860(SC), ASAFA FOODS v. ALRAINE LTD 2002 5 S.C.N.J 53; (2002) LPELR-570(SC), ODUTOLA HOLDINGS LTD & 6 ORS v. MR. KUNLE LADEJOBI & 13 ORS 2006 ALL FWLR (pt. 322); (2006) LPELR-2260(SC).
Resolution of issue(s)
In resolving the issues, the Court held that jurisdiction, being fundamental to adjudication, may be raised at any stage, including on appeal, citing MADUKOLU V. NKEMDILIM (1962) ALL NLR 587 AT 595; (1962) LPELR-24023(SC), DANGOTE V. AP PLC & ORS (2012) LPELR-7981(CA) (PP. 14-16 PARAS. A), MUSACONI LIMITED V. ASPINALL (2013) LPELR-20745(SC) (Pp. 25-26 paras. F), ODE V. UZOR & ORS (2023) LPELR-60346(SC) (Pp. 15-16 paras. F), UBA PLC V. TRIEDENT CONSULTING LTD (2023) LPELR- 60643(SC) (PP. 11 PARAS. A), OSINOWO V. NIGERIAN NAVY (2019) LPELR-46429(CA) (PP. 11 PARAS. A), IGP & ANOR V. AGBINONE & ORS (2019) LPELR-46431(CA) (Pp. 9-10 paras. E).
On the first jurisdictional issue, the Court held that, although the University has statutory autonomy and discretion to determine who qualifies for its degrees and certificates, that discretion does not extend to unlawfully withholding the result or certificate of a student who has successfully completed the programme. The Court distinguished between the award of a degree, which is ordinarily within the University’s domestic jurisdiction, and the refusal to release a result or certificate without lawful justification, which may constitute a justiciable violation of the student’s rights. Relying on UNILORIN v. RASHEEDAT ADESINA (2014) LPELR-23019(SC), AKINTEMI v. ONWUMECHILI (1985) LPELR-357 (SC), and UNIVERSITY OF CALABAR v. ESIAGA (1997) 4 NWLR (pt. 502), the Court resolved this issue against the Appellant.
On the issue of limitation of action, the Court held that the Respondent’s claim was not statute-barred under Section 2(a) of the Public Protection Act, because the University’s alleged wrongful refusal to release the certificate constituted a continuing wrong, persisting until the certificate was eventually released. The Court relied on UNILORIN V. AKINOLA (2014) LPELR-23275(SC) (Pp. 37-38 paras. F-F), MAUTECH V. YARAI (2020) 15 NWLR (PT. 1748) 395; (2020) LPELR-49930(CA), AKWA IBOM STATE UNIVERSITY V. IKPE (2016) 5 NWLR (PT. 1504) 146; (2015) LPELR-25830(CA), UNILORIN v. DUNMADE (2013) LPELR-21383(CA) (Pp. 20-21 paras. F), IKINE v. ADJERODE (2002) FWLR Pt. 42 Pg. 1775; (2001) LPELR-1479(SC).
On the award of exemplary/punitive damages, the Court found no basis for interference with the award, holding that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the lower Courts applied wrong principles or arrived at an unreasonable assessment. Citing ODIBA v. AZEGE (1998) 9 NWLR Pt.; (1998) LPELR-2215(SC), FIRST BANK & ORS v. A.G. FEDERATION & ORS (2018) 7 NWLR Pt. 1617; (2018) LPELR-46084(SC, ELIOCHIN (NIGERIA) LTD V. VICTOR MBADIWE (1986) 1 NWLR (PT.14) 47 AT 65; (1986) LPELR-1119(SC).
In conclusion, the Court held that the Appellant failed to show that the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the learned trial judge and the Court of Appeal were perverse, and held that the appeal was wholly without merit.
Held:
In a Majority decision, Justice IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA JSC dissenting, the appeal was dismissed.
Appearances:
Benjamin Obiora, Esq. with him, E.N. Agadu, (Mrs.) Esq.
– For Appellant(s)
Emeka Izima, Esq. – For Respondent(s)
Compiled by LawPavilion
In this article