Patrick D. Magit V. University Of Agriculture, Makurdi & Ors (2005)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OGBUAGU, J.S.C.

The case leading to this appeal, commenced at the Benue State High Court sitting at Makurdi under the Fundamental Human Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1979 wherein, the appellant sought leave to apply for a judicial review, to wit: Orders of Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition against the respondents. The case was canvassed on affidavit evidence and at the end, the learned trial Judge, – Ahura, J. in his ruling dated 16th June, 2000, dismissed the application. The appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal (herein called “the court below”), was dismissed hence the instant appeal.

The facts of the case briefly stated, are that the appellant in the 1993/1994 academic session, was admitted by the 1st respondent, to do an M.Sc. degree in Agricultural Economics. As part of the M.Sc. programme, the appellant was required to write/submit an acceptable thesis. A topic for the thesis was chosen and duly approved. The degree awarding authority is the Senate of the University – i.e. the 2nd respondent.

The appellant was given two (2) Supervisors, namely, Dr. G.B. Ayoola as the Major Supervisor and Dr. J. C. Umeh an Associate Professor with the 1st respondent, as the internal examiner. The external examiner of the appellant, was Prof J.O. Olukosi of the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. According to the Masters Degree Programme, the appellant’s thesis, must be attested by an External as well as an internal examiner. Prof. M.C. Njike, was the Dean of Post Graduate School in the 1st respondent’s employment.

The appellant, submitted his thesis to the Board of Examiners comprising the above-named gentlemen/personalities who invited the appellant to defend his thesis orally, which he did. Thereafter, the Panel/Board, recommended in exh. 3 at page 14 of the records, inter alia, thus:

“(b) That the thesis be accepted and the degree awarded subject to corrections to be certified as may be determined by the panel.”

As a result of the report submitted to it on the appellant’s corrected thesis, the 2nd respondent, rejected the said thesis and advised the appellant to withdraw from the University with immediate effect and asked him to hand-over certain items/property of the University in his possession to the Acting Dean of Students before he leaves the Campus. In its letter of “withdrawal” to the appellant – exh. 6, the 2nd respondent, gave its reasons for its said decision.

The appellant at the High Court, sought the following reliefs:

“(i) An order quashing the decision of the respondents contained in a letter Ref No. UAM/ACA/COM/04/V dated 18/2/2000, on the grounds that the said decision was arrived at in breach of the rules of natural justice and the fundamental right of the applicant to fair hearing as guaranteed by the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

(ii) An order quashing the decision of the respondents in the said letter on the grounds that the decision ultra vires-(sic.) the powers of the Senate of the University of Agriculture, Makurdi, and or that the said decision of the University of Agriculture, Makurdi, and or that the said decision was taken in breach of the University of Agriculture Decree No. 48 of 1992.

(iii) An order compelling the respondents herein to produce before this Honourable Court for the purpose of their being quashed, every decision taken, every report of any panel that may have been set up and the results thereof, every recommendations made to the respondents by any person or group of persons in relation to the thesis of the applicant contrary to the report of the examination panel headed by Prof J. C. Olukosi and the accepted corrections made thereto, and accepted by applicant’s major supervisor and internal examiner.

(iv) An order of mandamus against the respondents herein, compelling them to issue to the applicant has (sic) M.Sc. (Agric. Econs.) Degree Certificate.

(v) Any other legal or equitable remedies that may be available to the applicant in the circumstances of this case.

3. Grounds upon which reliefs are sought

(i) Before the thesis of the applicant was rejected by the Senate of the 1st respondent and applicant advised to withdraw with immediate effect from the University on the grounds of “employing unacademic means” and “academic dishonesty” in arriving at the results, applicant was not given the opportunity to defend the allegations, nor was his attention drawn to this allegations at any time before the decision.