UNIVERSITY OF PORT HARCOURT V. EDWIN CHIRA NWUZOR (2024)

Background

The appeal concerned the refusal of the University of Port Harcourt to issue Mr. Edwin Chira Nwuzor with his master’s degree certificate after he had completed a postgraduate programme in Petroleum and Gas Engineering (Reservoir Option). The respondent was admitted to the programme in 1999 and, on 17 July 2002, received a departmental statement of result confirming that he had successfully completed the programme, with a cumulative grade point average of 3.44. The document also stated that his certificate would be issued in due course.

Despite the university’s assurance, the certificate was not issued while certificates or success letters were issued to the respondent’s contemporaries. The respondent repeatedly approached university officials between 2004 and 2009. He was given several explanations, including alleged administrative difficulties, the absence or non-approval of an external examiner’s report, failure to pay additional fees and, eventually, an allegation that he had not attained the required CGPA. The respondent maintained that the university had already confirmed his success and that the refusal to issue the certificate was unjustified.

He commenced proceedings in the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt, seeking declaratory reliefs, an order of mandamus compelling the university to remove administrative obstacles and issue the certificate, and N80 million as exemplary and aggravated damages. During the trial, following the court’s encouragement of settlement, the university eventually handed the certificate to him on 14 April 2010. The trial nonetheless continued on the question of the legality of the withholding and the claim for damages. The Federal High Court granted most of the reliefs and awarded N25 million as exemplary or punitive damages, while refusing aggravated damages. The Court of Appeal, by a majority, affirmed the decision. The university appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the courts below had jurisdiction to entertain the respondent’s action, having regard to the university’s statutory power to award degrees and certificates.
2. Whether the action was statute-barred under section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act.
3. Whether the award of N25 million exemplary damages was legally justified and should be disturbed on appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court, by a majority, dismissed the appeal. Ogunwumiju JSC, delivering the lead judgment, held that although a university has exclusive statutory authority to determine whether a student is qualified for the award of a degree or certificate, that authority is not a licence to withhold a result or certificate arbitrarily after the student has apparently completed the programme and has been informed of success.

The Court drew a material distinction between the award of a degree and the release of a result or certificate. The former is ordinarily an internal or domestic matter for the university’s senate and other authorised organs, and the courts will not substitute their judgment for that of the institution. The latter, however, may become justiciable where the university has failed to give a substantial, verifiable and lawful reason for withholding the document. In such circumstances, the dispute concerns an abuse of statutory power, breach of civil rights and compliance with the law establishing the university.

The Court further held that jurisdiction is fundamental and may be raised at any stage, including for the first time on appeal or by the court on its own initiative. Nevertheless, the university’s jurisdictional objection failed on the merits because the respondent’s complaint was not merely that the university had refused to exercise its academic discretion. Rather, the evidence showed prolonged and unexplained withholding after a written confirmation of successful completion, coupled with shifting explanations and continued assurances that the certificate would be released.

On limitation, the Court held that section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act generally requires an action against a public officer or public authority to be commenced within three months from the completion of the cause of action. However, the cause of action in this case was continuous. The university’s repeated engagement with the respondent and its representations that the matter would be resolved gave him reasonable grounds to believe that the certificate would be issued. The wrong therefore continued until the university’s failure to resolve the matter crystallised into a clear refusal, shortly before the action was filed. The statute was consequently inapplicable.

On damages, the Court accepted that the university’s conduct was irresponsible, oppressive, capricious and reprehensible. An appellate court will not interfere with an award merely because it might have awarded more or less; intervention is justified only where the trial court applied wrong principles, considered irrelevant matters or arrived at an entirely erroneous estimate. The university failed to demonstrate such an error.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court characterised the university’s conduct as a civil wrong, or tort, involving breach of a duty fixed by law and redressible by damages. The university had issued a statement confirming the respondent’s successful completion, yet failed for approximately seven years to provide the promised certificate and gave inconsistent explanations. The later delivery of the certificate during trial did not extinguish the respondent’s claim for damages arising from the earlier wrongful withholding.

The majority affirmed the reliefs granted by the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal, including the N25 million exemplary damages award. It also awarded N2 million costs against the university for the Supreme Court appeal.

Saulawa JSC dissented. In his view, the respondent’s pleadings concerned refusal to award a master’s degree certificate, not merely refusal to release an examination result. Since the University of Port Harcourt Act vested the power to award degrees and certificates in the university’s authorised organs, he considered the matter non-justiciable and the trial court lacking jurisdiction. He would have allowed the appeal and struck out the suit. The remaining justices agreed with the lead judgment.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed by a majority of four justices to one. The judgments of the Federal High Court and Court of Appeal were affirmed, including the N25 million exemplary damages award and the N2 million costs order.

Significance

The decision confirms that Nigerian courts will generally respect a university’s academic autonomy in deciding who qualifies for a degree. However, that autonomy does not protect arbitrary, unexplained or prolonged refusal to release a result or certificate after successful completion has been acknowledged. Universities must exercise their statutory powers lawfully, transparently and consistently with fair administrative practice. The case also illustrates that continuing institutional engagement may prevent a limitation period from running where the claimant is repeatedly led to believe that the wrong will be remedied.