Review of the case of University of Ilorin v. Mr. Jolayemi Ademola Ayodeji
This is a landmark Nigerian court decision that highlights the complexities of student-university relationships and the limits of institutional discretion.
Case Background
Mr. Jolayemi Ademola Ayodeji, a Ph.D. student at the University of Ilorin, completed his thesis in 2000 but faced significant delays in having his oral examination conducted. Despite repeated requests, the university failed to reconstitute the examination panel, prompting Ayodeji to seek legal action at the federal high court, Ilorin judicial division and obtain judgment in his favour before the appeal to the court of appeal. At the trial court, Mr. Ayodeji sought the following reliefs:
1. A declaration that the refusal, failure or neglect of the Defendant to constitute the requisite panel for the oral examination of the Plaintiff on his thesis since 2001 till date is unlawful, malicious, arbitrary and oppressive in the extreme on the footing of which the plaintiff is entitled to be assuaged in damages.
2. A declaration that it will be unjust, inequitable and indefensible in law to allow the Defendant to permanently deny the plaintiff of the opportunity of concluding the Ph.D. program, regard being had to the fact that the Plaintiff was/is not responsible for any delay or culpable for any malfeasance in respect thereof.
3. A sum of N50 Million as aggravated and/exemplary damages for the career stagnation or retrogression, academic misfortune, untold agony and emotional distress caused by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on the footing of the unjustified denial of the opportunity to complete his Ph.D. all these years.
4. AND ORDER compelling the Defendant to fortwith set up the requisite examination panel for the oral examination of the Plaintiff’s thesis and subsequent thereto award the Ph.D. degree backdated as appropriate vis-a-vis the original schedule to the Plaintiff, subject to all relevant conditions of award of the degree to the plaintiff.”
The facts before the trial court was that, the Respondent while a senior lecturer with the Appellant got admitted as a part-time Ph.D. student in the University in 1995. He allegedly carried on with his program without defaulting on any of the registration requirements and concluded the programme in November, 2000. Upon the submission of his thesis, the Board of Post Graduate School of the Appellant constituted a five-man examination panel to examine him.
The oral defence of his thesis was scheduled for 9th March, 2001. This could not hold because the University was closed down on 7th March, 2001 as a result of the industrial crisis that engulfed the University. Before the re-opening of the University, three out of the five members of the examination panel for the Respondent had been sacked as lecturers, thereupon the examination panel could not function. The Respondent said he made several appeals to the University to reconstitute the requisite examination panel for him but his appeals were not heeded by the Appellant out of malice. On 8th March, 2002, the Head of the Respondent’s Department who was also his Chief Examiner, Dr. Bukoye Arowolo wrote a “TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN” by which he gave an update of the Respondent’s Ph.D. programme and indicated that the Respondent had virtually concluded the programme.
In addition, the Respondent also wrote two letters to the Appellant on 17th of November, 2003 and 18th May, 2004 titled: “REQUEST FOR AN UPDATE ON Ph.D. VIVA” and “REACTIVATION OF Ph.D. PROGRAMME: A PASSIONATE APPEAL respectively.” Even the external examiner of the Respondent wrote a letter to the Post Graduate School of the University on 8th November, 2004, enquiring the position of the authorities on the defence of the Ph.D. of the Respondent, but the Respondent claimed that this letter and the appeals he wrote were all rebuffed by the Appellant.
The Respondent claimed that the delay in the re-constitution of the examination panel delayed the conclusion of his Ph.D. program and caused his loss of a research fellowship, awarded to him by the Alexander Von Humboldt Foundation in Germany. He said after many years of waiting for the Appellant to re-constitute the examination panel, he finally instructed his lawyers to write to the Appellant demanding the re-activation of his Ph.D. programme within 14 days of the receipt of the demand letter which was dated 16th April, 2008.
Despite this demand letter the Appellant kept mum on the fate of the Respondent’s Ph.D. program. He contended that the refusal of the Appellant to allow him conclude his Ph.D. program is arbitrary, malicious, oppressive and a manifestation of hatred for his person by those at the helm of the affairs of the administration of the Appellant.
Decision of the Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Ayodeji and awarded damages of N10 million Naira, holding that:
•The university’s actions were oppressive and high-handed: The court found that the university’s refusal to reconstitute the examination panel was unjustified and amounted to an outright disregard of Ayodeji’s rights. The court said “ ….From all I have said above, the Appellant’s refusal to re-constitute the panel to examine the Respondent’s Ph. D thesis cannot be justified by the evidence before the Court. Also by the principle of law in Yusuf V. Dada (supra), she is estopped from relying on Exhibit DW1A to deny the Respondent the completion of his programme for the reason that he had overstayed on his programme”. Having held that the decision of the learned trial Judge was not perverse and the Appellant is estopped from relying on Respondent’s overstay on his programme to refuse to re-constitute his oral examination panel, the issue in this regard was firmly resolved in favour of the Respondent.
•Ayodeji had exhausted internal dispute resolution mechanisms: The court held that Ayodeji had waited long enough for the university to respond to his appeals, effectively exhausting internal avenues for redress and the respondent is not in breach of the requirements of first exhausting internal resolution mechanisms. Evidence before the court showed that, On 8th March, 2002, the Head of the Respondent’s Department who was also his Chief Examiner, Dr. Bukoye Arowolo wrote a “TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN” by which he gave an update of the Respondent’s Ph.D. programme and indicated that the Respondent had virtually concluded the programme.
In addition, the Respondent also wrote two letters to the Appellant on 17th of November, 2003 and 18th May, 2004 titled: “REQUEST FOR AN UPDATE ON Ph.D. VIVA” and “REACTIVATION OF Ph.D. PROGRAMME: A PASSIONATE APPEAL respectively.” Even the external examiner of the Respondent wrote a letter to the Post Graduate School of the University on 8th November, 2004, enquiring the position of the authorities on the defence of the Ph.D. of the Respondent, but the Respondent claimed that this letter and the appeals he wrote were all rebuffed by the Appellant.
•The award of N10 million in damages was justified: The court upheld the trial court’s award, citing the university’s oppressive behavior. Delivering the lead judgment, His Lordship stated thus: “From the evidence on record, it is correct as submitted by the Respondent’s counsel that there is a binding cord between the Appellant’s refusal to reconstitute the Respondent’s oral examination panel to enable him complete his Ph.D. Degree and the loss of the Alexander Von Humboldt Fellowship award. By the pleadings, the letter dated 6th June, 2003 at page 22 of the record and Exhibit DW1H contained at page 80 of the bound Exhibits, it is glaring that the Respondent applied for the Fellowship award which was granted him via letter of 6th June, 2003 in anticipation that his Ph.D. programme would have been through before the grant of the award in view of the fact that by March, 2001 he was already scheduled to defend his Ph.D. thesis. By the refusal of the Appellant to reconstitute his oral examination Panel, the Respondent was able to obtain an extension with the hope that the Appellant will respect his right and reconstitute the panel. See: Exhibit DW1H. When the Appellant maintained her ground of refusal to reconstitute the panel, the award was cancelled.
The loss of the award was frontally tied to the high handed stance of the Appellant in refusing to allow the Respondent complete his Ph.D. programme. The Respondent was therefore entitled to exemplary damages for the loss.
For all I have said above, I hold that the decision of the award of exemplary damages against the Appellant is not perverse neither is the sum awarded outrageous, I therefore find no reason to interfere with the said decision of the trial Court”.
Key Issues Highlighted in the judgement
•Contractual Relationship: The court recognized an implied contract between Ayodeji and the University of Ilorin, where the university offered admission, and Ayodeji accepted, paid fees, and committed time and effort to the program.
•Exhaustion of Domestic Avenues: The court emphasized that Ayodeji had appealed to the university council and waited four years without a response, demonstrating that he had exhausted internal dispute resolution mechanisms.
•Damages Award: The court upheld the award of N10 million in damages, finding the university’s actions oppressive and high-handed.
Conclusion
This case underscores the importance of institutions adhering to their contractual obligations and respecting students’ rights. The court’s decision highlights the need for universities to act fairly and in good faith when dealing with students, particularly in matters related to academic progression .