Concise Analysis of Mr. Femi Olufemi Ibukun Dunmade V University of Ilorin
Case Background
The case of Mr. Olufemi Ibukun Dunmade vs. the University of Ilorin revolves around a dispute over the denial of a Ph.D. degree.
Mr. Olufemi Ibukun Dunmade, a part-time Ph.D. student at the University of Ilorin, started his program in 1992. Despite completing his thesis and defense, the university withheld his degree due to alleged overstaying. Dunmade petitioned the university’s management and later filed a suit at the Federal High Court, claiming the university’s actions were malicious and oppressive .
Issues for Determination in the suit.
The Court of Appeal identified four key issues:
– Jurisdiction: Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the matter, considering Section 7 of the University of Ilorin Act.
– Estoppel: Whether the university was estopped from claiming that Dunmade overstayed his program, having conducted his defense and accepted his thesis.
– Declaratory Reliefs: Whether the trial court was right in granting declaratory reliefs sought by Dunmade.
– Exemplary Damages: Whether the trial court was justified in awarding N10 million in exemplary damages against the university.
Court Judgment
The Court of Appeal made several key positions thus:
•On Jurisdiction: The court held that the trial court had jurisdiction over the matter, despite the University of Ilorin Act vesting certain powers in the university’s senate. The court ruled that the provisions of Section 7(2)(b) and (c) of the University of Ilorin Act are not designed to oust the jurisdiction of the courts.
•On Estoppel: The court held that the university was estopped from claiming that Dunmade overstayed his program, having conducted his defense and accepted his thesis. The court ruled that the university’s actions constituted waiver and estoppel, preventing them from belatedly raising the issue of overstay.
•On Declaratory Reliefs: The court upheld the trial court’s decision to grant declaratory reliefs sought by Dunmade, including a declaration that he was entitled to the award of his Ph.D. degree.
•On Exemplary Damages: The court upheld the award of N10 million in exemplary damages against the university, citing their high-handedness and vindictiveness in withholding Dunmade’s degree.
•On University Autonomy: The court noted that while universities have autonomy, this autonomy is not absolute. The court held that courts can intervene in university decisions where there is arbitrariness, malice, or breach of natural justice.
The court also emphasized that :
“The university has acquiesced and waived whatever delay it may claim against the student, the principles of Estoppel will apply to stop the defendant from belatedly remembering that the Plaintiff has not met the requirements.”
“The act of withholding Respondent’s Ph.D is a continuing act, the cause of action would last as long as the act continues the action cannot be statute barred.”
.
Case Focus
This case focuses on :
University Autonomy vs. Judicial Oversight: The limits of university discretion in awarding degrees and the role of courts in ensuring fairness and transparency.
•Estoppel in Administrative Decision-Making: The principle of estoppel and its application in preventing universities from retracting decisions that have already been made.
•Jurisdiction of Courts: The jurisdiction of courts in matters related to university governance and the award of degrees.
•Award of Damages: The award of damages for malice and arbitrariness in university administration.