Legalpedia Citation: (2023-12) Legalpedia 98510 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden At Calabar

Wed Dec 13, 2023

Suit Number: CA/C/17/2020

CORAM

Hamma Akawu Barka Justice, Court of Appeal

Balkisu Bello Aliyu Justice, Court of Appeal

Peter Chudi Obiora Justice, Court of Appeal

PARTIES

UNIVERSITY OF UYO

APPELLANTS

GODWIN UDO UDO

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, EVIDENCE, FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The respondent gained admission into the Department of Brewing Science and Technology, Faculty of Natural and Applied Sciences in the 1999/2000 session for a five years academic program. The Department was later changed to Department of Food Science and Technology under the Faculty of Agricultural Science.

The respondent claimed that he registered for all the courses he was required to take for the program and wrote and passed all the required examinations necessary for the award of a degree of the school. He also claimed that the appellant published his name among the list of students qualified to go for NYSC program and after completing his clearance, the appellant refused to clear him to proceed on the NYSC program and also refused to issue him with results of the course the respondent studied and completed.

The respondent stated that he lodged a complaint with the Senate, Registrar and Students’ Affairs Department of the school who kept the investigation for seven years (2008 to 2014) and at the end, the panel of the appellant cleared him of any wrongdoing but surprisingly the appellant published the name of the respondent as one of the persons that were no longer students of the appellant university.

The respondent filed this suit for redress. The appellant, though participated in the trial, did not file any defence in the case. The appellant only filed a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the lower Court on the ground that the suit was statute barred. The lower Court delivered a ruling holding that the suit was not statute barred and also a judgment on the merits of the suit granting the reliefs sought by the respondent.

The appellant being dissatisfied with the decision filed the instant appeal.

HELD

Appeal Allowed

ISSUES

Whether the learned trial Court acted rightly by assuming jurisdiction to entertain the action, the subject matter of this appeal?

Whether it was within the powers of the learned trial Court to grant the reliefs as sought by the Respondent before the lower Court?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

BURDEN OF PROOF – BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF IN CIVIL CASES

It is trite law that a cause of action is the factual situation and events that gives a party to sue and seek redress from the Court. See Egbe v. Adefarasin (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 47) 1 at 20; Ojie & Ors v. Govt. of Cross River State & Anor (2016) LPELR-41381(CA) and Woherem v. Emereuwa (2000) 3 NWLR (Pt. 650) 529 at 538. – Per P. C. Obiora, JCA

LIMITATION – HOW A PERIOD OF LIMITATION IS DETERMINED

The question now is how to determine the period of limitation which is the foundation for checking if the present suit is statute barred. The answer to the question appears quite simple and three indices are used:

(a) the date when the cause of action accrued;

(b) the date of commencement of the suit; and

(c) the period of time prescribed by the statute for bringing an action. – Per P. C. Obiora, JCA

BURDEN OF PROOF – BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF IN CIVIL CASES

This is a civil case and the standard of proof is on balance of probabilities and preponderance of evidence.

The law is firmly settled that in a civil suit, the burden of proof lies on the person against whom the judgment of the Court would be given if no evidence was led on either side. However, the burden of proof of particular facts in a civil suit is not static, as the initial burden is on the person who asserts a particular fact and once that fact is established to the satisfaction of the Court, the burden shifts to the other party and so on until all the issues in controversy between the parties have been disposed of. See Sections 131, 132, 133 and 134 of the Evidence Act, 2011, Iroagbara v. Ufomadu (2009) LPELR-1538(SC) and Oyetunji v. Awoyemi & Ors (2013) LPELR-20226(CA).  – Per P. C. Obiora, JCA

BURDEN OF PROOF – WHETHER THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS ON HENWHO ASSERTS

The golden rule of law has always been that he who asserts must prove. See Sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act, 2011. It is at the point of proving the assertions that the respondent will give life to the numerous assertions and documents pleaded. By so doing, he would establish the initial burden of proof placed on him as someone who will fail if no evidence is led on either side. – Per P. C. Obiora, JCA

COURTS – CONDUCT OF COURTS IN ACCEPTING AND ACTING ON EVIDENCE

The trial Court correctly stated the principle that where evidence is not controverted or contradicted it ought to be accepted by the Court. But there is a caveat. The unchallenged evidence must on its own be credible for the Court to accept and act on it. – Per P. C. Obiora, JCA

EVIDENCE – THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE – DUTY OF PARTIES TO TENDER EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PLEADINGS

There is a gulf of difference between pleadings and evidence, even though both must work together. As succinctly put by Wambai, JCA in Jibia & Ors v. Sule & Ors (2022) LPELR-58293(CA) Pp. 24-25 paras. E-E

“This underscores the significance of the relationship between pleadings and evidence on cases fought on pleadings. The relationship between a party’s evidence and his pleadings is like that of a building and its foundation. Every structure or building is erected upon a foundation. The party’s pleadings in civil cases is the foundation, the skeletal framework, while the evidence is the flesh that clothes the skeletal framework, both of which, put together, make up the body of party’s case. In other words, the pleadings of a party form the backbone, (framework of the case) which provides the foundation upon which to rest the flesh of the case. It is the evidence that makes the body (the case) solid.”

Pleadings by itself is not evidence. I must say that in this era of frontloading of written statement on oath of witnesses alongside the pleadings of a party prepared under the tutelage of a lawyer, it has become the norm for you to see written statements on oath which are almost word for word reproduction of the pleadings, as in the present case. The mere adoption of such written statement on oath which merely regurgitates the words of the pleadings cannot take the place of cogent and credible evidence to establish the allegations made in the pleadings.

In other words, the mere adoption of the written statement on oath which transmutes into oral evidence does not absolve the party from tendering documentary evidence to prove his case, where need be.  – Per P. C. Obiora, JCA

RESULTS AND CERTIFICATES – CONDUCT OF COURTS TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENTS AND UNIVERSITY CONCERNING RESULTS AND AWARD OF CERTIFICATES

On this issue of relationship between a student and university concerning results and award of certificates, we have judicial authorities which will serve as guide. In Unilorin v. Akinola (2014) LPELR-23275(SC) at pages 37-38 paras. F-F, Galadima, JSC held:

“The Courts will not readily and cannot in any disguise, usurp what is appropriately the functions and powers of the Senate, the Council and the Visitor of the University in the selection of their proper candidates for awards of Degrees, Diplomas and Certificates.

See SS.6, 7 and 14(2) Caps 117, University of Ilorin Act. LFN Vol, 15, 2004. See also ANYAH v. IYAYI (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 502) 719, MAGIT v. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE MAKURDI (2005) 19 NWLR. Generally, the consideration for an award of such accolades as aforementioned are considered the domestic domain of the Universities. These are elasticated powers that can change or be changed depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.”

The Supreme Court recognized the fact that there are exceptions to this general rule that award of certificates is the domestic affair of the school, and continuing, Galadima, JSC stated:

“There are, no doubt, some exceptions and this Court has made it clear in a plethora of its decisions. In the instant case such exceptions exist. It is clear that the Appellant herein has exhausted all avenues and entreaties to the appellant to release his academic records including the Degree Certificate to which his completed course of study entitles him. Yet the appellant remains adamant in neither releasing his result nor proffering any good and substantial reason for withholding of the Respondent’s academic records since 1998. In the circumstance the Courts below could not abdicate their responsibility in ensuring that the appellant abides by the law setting it up. The respondent to my mind, had no choice, but to approach the trial Court to seek for redress. He did and he got it.”

Furthermore, in Unilorin v. Adesina (2014) LPELR-23019(SC) at pages 22-23 paras. D-A, Rhodes-Vivour, JSC held:

“The Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere in the internal or domestic matters of a University. Such matters are within the exclusive province of the Senate of the University and the visitor. But where it becomes clear that in resolving domestic disputes the University is found to have breached the civil rights and obligations of the respondents thereby raising issues of public import, the Courts would have jurisdiction. See Akintemi & Ors v. Onwumechili & Ors (1985) 1 NSCC Vol. 16 p. 45.

“There is a vast difference between release of results and award of degree. Domestic disputes are those disputes which are solely of interest to members of the University, but the release of results is a matter of some interest to the public and is not strictly a domestic dispute. Afterall the University has exclusive right to decide who it confers its degrees on. No one can question that. A student who takes part in an examination is entitled to see his results. Refusal to release results is not strictly a domestic issue. Refusal to release results with no reason for the refusal raises issues of breach of civil rights and obligation, denial of fair hearing which are all justiciable.” (underlining is mine for emphasis)

See also Magit v. University of Agriculture, Makurdi (2005) 19 NWLR (pt. 959) 211.

The above authorities emphasized the point that a University cannot refuse to release the result of a student which is necessarily the foundation of checking if the student is qualified, all things being equal, to the award of a certificate of the university. – Per P. C. Obiora, JCA

COUNSEL’S ADDRESS – WHETHER COUNSEL’S ADDRESS CAN TAKE THE PLACE OF PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE

…the law is trite that counsel’s address, no matter how brilliant, cannot be a substitute for evidence that was not led before the Court. As was held in Nipost v. Musa (2013) LPELR-20780(CA) Pp. 69 paras. C, per Sankey, JCA –

“Furthermore, addresses of counsel do not and cannot take the place of evidence. A party cannot make out a case solely on the address of counsel, but on facts pleaded and evidence adduced in support of such facts. See Oloruntoba-Oju V. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 SCNJ 1. Address by counsel does not serve as a substitute for evidence. Submissions therein on facts not pleaded and proved amounts to no issue. Cases are won on credible evidence and not on addresses. See Ogunsanya V State (2011) 6 SCNJ 190, Saltzgitter Stahl GMBH V. Dosunmu (2010) 20 SCNJ 186.”

See also Ishola v. Ajiboye (1998) 1 NWLR (pt 532)71, Chukujekwu v. Olalere (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt 221) 86 and Danladi v. El-Rufai (2015) LPELR-40767(CA). – Per P. C. Obiora, JCA

DEFENCE – WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF ANY DEFENCE FROM A DEFENDANT AIDS THE WEAK CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

The respondent has not met the threshold of proof of his claim to shift the burden on the appellant. Accordingly, the absence of any defence from the appellant does not aid the very weak case presented by the respondent. This is because a plaintiff can still lose a case even where there is no defence to the suit, since the plaintiff has the duty to establish his entitlement to the reliefs he seeks based on the strength of his case. Put differently, a defendant who did not lead evidence during trial may still be entitled to the judgment of the Court where the evidence of the plaintiff is so patently unreasonable that no reasonable Court can accept and act on it. See Orji v. Ugochukwu (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1161) 207. – Per P. C. Obiora, JCA

 

COURTS – DUTY OF COURTS IN ADJUDICATION

As human beings, our physiology and nature give room for sentiments and emotions. But such sentiments and emotions stop at the door of the law Court. The duty of the Court is to do justice and decide issues in accordance with the law without sentiments or sympathy. See Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Senator Adolphus N. Wabara (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1347) 331 at 357, Olu Ode Okpe v. Fan Milk PLC & Anor (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1549) 282 at 310, Ime Umanah Jnr. v. Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (2016) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1533) 458 at 484 and PDP v. Idaboh & Ors (2017) LPELR-43404(CA) p. 22-24 paras. E-E). – Per P. C. Obiora, JCA

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Public Officers Protection Act, Cap. P41, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004
2. Evidence Act, 2011

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT