UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN - Appellants
AND
STEPHEN OLANREWAJU AKINOLA - Respondents
Summary
This appeal is against the decision of the
Ilorin Division of the Court of Appeal also herein after referred to as
the Court below or Lower Court, which judgment was delivered on the 8th
day of June, 2007 upholding the decision of the trial High Court.
The Plaintiff is a student of the University of Ilorin. He was admitted
into the University in 1995 to study Statistics. His Matriculation No.
is 95/043061.
The Defendant is a University created and funded at public expense by
the Federal Government of Nigeria and incorporated by and in the
University of Ilorin Act Cap. 455 of the Laws of the Federation of
Nigeria, 1990. The Plaintiff/Respondent undertook a course of study for
the award of a B.Sc. Degree in Statistics with the Defendant/Appellant
between the year 1995 and the first quarter of the year 1999. In the
course of his studentship with the Defendant/Appellant, he also partook
of student unionism as a result of which he had a problem with the
Appellant which led to a legal dispute in an earlier Suit NO.
FHC/IL/M.17/98 which ended in his favour.
The Defendant/Appellant refused to obey the judgment in the said suit
for which reason the Plaintiff/Respondent commenced contempt proceedings
against the Defendant/Appellant which then lodged an appeal against the
said Judgment. Both contempt proceedings and the appeal were still
pending when the Defendant's visitor, the President of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria set up a committee known as the "Resolution
Committee on Politically Victimized and Rusticated Students" headed by a
Special Adviser to the President on Education, Chief S.K. Babalola, to
mediate and conciliate the parties.
The parties presented their case to the Presidential Committee and terms
of settlement were agreed upon by which the Defendant agreed to pardon
the Plaintiff/Respondent for whatever wrongs he was alleged to have
committed subject to his fulfilling certain spelt out conditions. The
Plaintiff/Respondent fulfilled the conditions set for his pardon,
withdrew his contempt proceedings in Suit No. FHC/IL/M.17/98; and the
Defendant/Appellant on the other hand notified the Plaintiff/Respondent
of his pardon which was announced to the University Community, and
abandoned its appeal against the judgment in that suit.
The Defendant/Appellant despite repeated demands and pleas had since
then continued to withhold the Plaintiff/Respondent's result without any
official explanation other than that it was for "administrative and not
disciplinary case". The Defendant had since that time continued to
withhold the Plaintiff/Respondent's academic records.
The reliefs as sought by the Respondent herein as Plaintiff are thus:-
"(a) A DECLARATION that the Defendant is statutorily obliged to grant
degrees to persons who have pursued a course of study approved by it and
satisfied such other requirements as it may lay down.
(b) A DECLARATION that it is illegal for the Defendant, either directly
or surreptitiously, to require any person to satisfy any requirement as
to religious or political persuasion to be or continue to be a student
and the holder of any degree of the Defendant University.
(c) A DECLARATION that the Plaintiff, having pursued and completed a
course of study for the award of a B,Sc. Degree in Statistics, and also
satisfied all other requirements prescribed by the Defendant and made
known by it to the Plaintiff, is entitled to be awarded the same.
(d) A DECLARATION that the Plaintiff is entitled to be given the full
particulars of, and afforded an opportunity to defend himself on any
"administrative... case" alleged to be pending against him or claimed by
the Defendant to be responsible for the withholding of his academic
records.
(e) A DECLARATION that the withholding of the Plaintiff's academic
records since 1998 when he completed the course of study prescribed by
the Defendant for the award of a B.Sc. Degree in Statistics for reason
of an alleged "administrative.... case" stated in the Defendant's letter
Ref. No. UI/RO/D.14 dated 13th May, 2002 is capricious, oppressive,
illegal, unlawful, and constitutes a gross abuse of the Defendant's
statutory powers as contained in the University of Ilorin Act, Cap. 455
of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
(f) A DECLARATION that the withholding of the Plaintiff's academic
records since 1998 when he completed the course of study prescribed by
the Defendant for the award of a B.Sc. Degree in Statistics for reason
of an alleged "administrative.... case" stated in the Defendant's letter
Ref. No. UI/RO.D.14 dated the 13th May, 2002 is punitive and in breach
of the Defendant's right to a hearing before condemnation and
punishment.
(g) AN ORDER of specific performance of the agreement brokered at the
instance of the Defendant's visitor, the President Commander in chief of
the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, whereby the
parties agreed that the Plaintiff shall apologise for his student union
activities and pay a restitution in the sum of N1,000.00 to the
Defendant and the Defendant in consideration thereof shall restore to
the plaintiff all the rights reserved for him as a member of the
Defendant-University under the University of Ilorin Act, Cap. 455 of the
Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1995, which agreement was
subsequently notified by the parties to and judicially noticed by the
Court on the 29th day of October, 2001 in suit No. FHC/IL/M.17/98.
(h) AN ORDER of mandamus compelling the Defendant to remove forthwith
all the administrative (or like) impediments alleged by it to have
prevented, and to take all the administrative (or like) steps required
for the release of the Plaintiff's academic records including the Degree
to which his completed course of study with the Defendant entitles him,
and for the release of all said academic record and Degree forthwith.
(i) DAMAGES, on a footing of exemplary damages, in the sum of
N30,000,000.00."
Two issues for determination was formulated thus;
1.Whether the Lower court did not wrongly evaluate the evidence of facts
and the exhibits against the Appellant which thereby occasioned a
miscarriage of justice.
2.Whether the Lower Court was not wrong in holding that the judgment of
the trial Court did not infer from the letter of pardon that the
Respondent need not satisfy other requirements.
In conclusion,the two issues raised having been without difficulty
resolved in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant.The
learned justice held that this appeal is devoid of merit and was
accordingly dismissed.The judgment of the Court of Appeal was upheld and
the decision and orders of the trial High Court affirmed.
credit Law Pavillion
No comments:
Post a Comment