AHILE SEKAV DANIEL v. AKPERAN ORSHI COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, YANDEV - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

AHILE SEKAV DANIEL v. AKPERAN ORSHI COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, YANDEV

HERITAGE BANK PLC v. S & S WIRELESS LIMITED & ORS
April 10, 2025
HOTEL & CATERING SERVICES LIMITED v. UNCLE T. FURNITURE COMPANY NIGERIA & ANOR
April 10, 2025
HERITAGE BANK PLC v. S & S WIRELESS LIMITED & ORS
April 10, 2025
HOTEL & CATERING SERVICES LIMITED v. UNCLE T. FURNITURE COMPANY NIGERIA & ANOR
April 10, 2025
Show all

AHILE SEKAV DANIEL v. AKPERAN ORSHI COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, YANDEV

Legalpedia Citation: (2018) Legalpedia (CA) 11571

In the Court of Appeal

HOLDEN AT MAKURDI

Thu Nov 1, 2018

Suit Number: CA/MK/165/2017

CORAM


JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

JOSEPH EYO EKANEM, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL


PARTIES


AHILE SEKAV DANIEL

 


AKPERAN ORSHI COLLEGE OF

AGRICULTURE, YANDEV

 


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant, a student in the Respondent institution sat for his final exams sometime in 2009. During the conduct of one of the examinations, he was accused of exam malpractice, and so the Respondent refused to release his HND/Statement of Result and Certificate. The Appellant denied this allegation and after failed attempts to get his results, he filed an action before the High Court of Justice, Benue State sitting in Gboko against the Respondent and its Rector wherein he sought for the release of his HND/Statement of Result and Certificate; the sum of 5, 000, 000.00 (Five Million Naira), only as specific damages; and the sum of N50, 000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira), only as general damages. In their defence, the Respondent and its Rector denied the claim. At the close of trial, the lower Court struck out the name of the Rector as the 2nd Defendant entered Judgment in favour of Appellant in terms of his first relief only. No findings were made in respect of the second and third reliefs sought by the Appellant for special and general damages. Dissatisfied the Appellant filed this appeal contending that the failure of the lower Court to consider his reliefs on special and general damages and make a pronouncement one way or another amounted to grave error on the part of the Court.

 


HELD


Appeal Allowed

 


ISSUES


Whether or not the trial High Court was right in failing to decide on reliefs (b)and (c) of the reliefs sought at the trial.

 


RATIONES DECIDENDI


CASES CITED


Not Available

 


STATUTES REFERRED TO


Court of Appeal Act, 2004

Court of Appeal Rules, 2016|

 


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.