Duty of Care of University Authority to its Students
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Abuja
On Friday, the 12th day of December, 2025
Before Their Lordships
John Inyang Okoro
Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju
Festus Obande Ogbuinya
Stephen Jonah Adah
Abubakar Sadiq Umar
Justices, Supreme Court
SC/CV/819/2022
Between
MR ADEBAYO AFOLABI VICTOR APPELLANT
And
1. FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, AKURE
2. THE REGISTRAR, FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF
TECHNOLOGY, AKURE … RESPONDENTS
(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, JSC)
Facts
The Appellant was a Mechanical Engineering student in the Faculty of Engineering at the 1st Respondent University. The Appellant complained about the cumulative grade points average (CGPA) awarded to him by the 1st Respondent, which he insisted was not reflective of his true scores which would have qualified him for an award of a Second Class (Upper Division) degree in Mechanical Engineering. He posited that the Respondents erroneously awarded him Second Class (Lower Division); and thereby, requested his papers be re-marked by independent assessors and thereafter, his transcripts and certificate be given to him. Upon failure of the Respondents to comply with his requests, the Appellant commenced a suit against the Respondents vide Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim dated 4th August, 2011, alleging that the Respondents abandoned their duty of care owed to him by failing to investigate how he came about the low scores in some of his scripts, or re-mark his examination scripts in the courses in dispute. He prayed the court to direct a re-assessment/re-mark of the scripts in the courses he offered during his degree programme, and to release his transcript and certificate. He also sought special and general damages for loss of earnings, frustration, mental and emotional stress he suffered owing to the Respondents’ action/inaction.
At the trial, the Appellant testified for himself and tendered several documents. The documents were marked Exhibits “A” to “R”. Thereafter, the trial court expunged Exhibits “A”, “B”, “E”, “F”, “H”, “I”, “J”, “K”, “L” and “O”, as inadmissible. The Respondents called a witness who testified on their behalf, and tendered documents admitted in evidence. Afterwards, the trial court delivered judgement in September 2017, granting some of the reliefs claimed by the Appellant. The court had directed the Respondents to re-mark the Appellant’s scripts by external examiners in ten courses taken by the Appellant, and issue a final result and transcripts reflecting the results of the Appellant. General damages in the sum of N500,000.00, was awarded in favour of the Appellant against the Respondents.
The Respondents unsuccessfully challenged the appeal, at the Court of Appeal. The Appellant’s Cross-appeal at the lower court, succeeded in part. The Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the trial court which expunged some documents tendered by the Appellant, on the ground that some of those documents are private documents which do not require to be certified true copies for their admissibility, contrary to the decision of the trial court that the said documents were public documents. The Court of Appeal also invoked the provisions of Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act against the Respondents, for the documents which they were given notice to produce, but which they failed to produce. The appellate court, however, did not review the amount awarded as damages, but awarded the sum of N250,000.00 as costs in favour of the Appellant.
Further dissatisfied with the outcome of the appeal, the Respondents filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, while the Appellant filed a Cross-appeal. The Respondents’ appeal was heard, withdrawn and dismissed on 21st June, 2022. They filed a notice of compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court in SC/1022/2019, which contained documents detailing the academic transcripts of the Appellant with his re-marked scripts by external examiners and degree award of Bachelors of Engineering (B.Eng) with Second Class (Hons) Upper Division, and evidence of payment of the sum of N500,000.00 and N250,000.00 for damages and costs. The Respondents subsequently delivered the certificate and transcripts of the Appellant to him in court, leaving only the Cross-appeal (mainly on the quantum of damages and costs awarded by the lower courts) for determination of the Supreme Court.
Issues for Determination
1. Whether in the circumstances of this case, the lower court was right to affirm the award of the sum of N500,000.00 as general damages against the Respondents, and if the said amount is not extremely low as compensation for losses, constitutional breaches, and health effects suffered by the Appellant.
2. Whether the lower courts were right to have refused the claim of the Appellant for special damages for loss of earnings at the rate of N150,000.00 per month from October, 2010 until judgement is delivered in the suit, with accrued interests thereon.
3. Given the facts of this case, whether the sum of N50,000 and N200,000 awarded as costs of litigation are adequate in the circumstance.
Arguments
The Appellant submitted on the issues that the general damages and costs of litigation awarded by the courts below were inadequate, considering the breaches alleged against the Respondents, and the pain, humiliation, and hardship he suffered by the breach of the Respondents’ duty of care owed to him. He urged the court to review the damages to adequately compensate him for the injury suffered, and based on the principle of restitutio in integrum.
Court’s Judgement and Rationale
Deciding the issues, the Supreme Court enunciated on the purports of damages and principles guiding the award of damages. Reiterating the trite position of law on award of damages in tort, Their Lordships held that with respect to a breach of duty in tort as in this case, and not in contract, the quantum or measure of damages is generally to place the Claimant in the position he or she would have been had the tort not taken place. This could be in terms of general or/and special damages … – AGBANELO v UNION BANK PLC (2000) FWLR (PT. 13) 2197(SC); (2000) LPELR-234(SC). Before a court begins a meaningful assessment of damages, it must be sure of the nature of the claim. This is because in tort, it would be necessary to ascertain tortious conduct occasioning personal injury, economic loss or other social losses or a combination of the losses.
While the courts will not wander into the exclusive domain of academic judgement of the University, they will intervene where the University’s conduct amounts to underhand arbitrariness, incompetence, neglect or breach of standards that the law expects of a responsible academic institution. The University which admitted the Appellant as a student into a programme of study, has a correlative legal obligation or duty to evaluate the student objectively, through procedures that are credible, transparent and fair. The duty of care of a University authority to its students over their academic studies, refers to the legal and ethical responsibility the University owes to ensure that students are treated fairly, supported appropriately, and not subjected to foreseeable harm including academic, psychological, or procedural harm during their studies. The scope of the duty of care include academic, administrative, and pastoral. These duties have been recognised by courts in Nigeria, as espoused in the following cases – MAUTECH v YARAI (2020) 15 NWLR (PT. 1748) 395; UNILORIN v DUNMADE (2013) LPELR-21383(CA); UNILORIN v AKINOLA (2014) LPELR-23275(SC); UNIVERSITY OF PORT HARCOURT v NWUZOR (2024) LPELR-62382(SC).
In this case, the Appellant had claimed special damages in the sum of N150,000.00 per month from October 2010 to August 2011 when he commenced the suit, as loss of earnings for the period he would have been gainfully employed if he had been given an appropriate academic grade, and continuing until judgement is delivered. The Supreme Court agreed with the courts below, that the Appellant did not adequately prove the claim for special damages.
On the claim for general damages, however, the Supreme Court, however, held that the Appellant is entitled to general damages, as pecuniary compensation obtainable as a result of his success in the action for the wrong done to him by the Respondents’ refusal, for several years, to re-mark his script, issue him transcripts and certificate to secure gainful employment, and for the pain, stress and hardship he suffered. This includes his inability to access the opportunity for a fully funded scholarship for his master’s degree programme in the United Kingdom, as pleaded by him.
Further, in 2017, when the award of the sum of N500,000.00 as general damages was made in favour of the Appellant, the Appellant had suffered the breach of duty of care for about 10 years. Quantum of general damages need not be pleaded and proved. It is a reasonable person’s consideration of what is adequate compensation for the loss, suffering or inconvenience flowing naturally as generally presumed by law from the act of the Defendant – ROCKONOH PROPERTY CO. LTD. v NITEL PLC & ANOR. (2001) FWLR (PT. 67) 885 AT 900 (SC); (2001) 14 NWLR (PT. 733) 468. The award of damages in the circumstance of this case cannot be merely perfunctory, but must be compensatory.
In view of the foregoing, the Apex Court held that the amount awarded as general damages is inadequate to fully assuage the emotional and physical suffering occasioned to the Appellant by the Respondents, who abandoned their duty of care to the Appellant. The court, thereby, awarded the sum of N18,000,000.00 to the Appellant against the Respondents, as damages for breach of their duty of care to the Appellant, and the resultant emotional and physical stress caused to him since 2007, when he completed his course of study at the University and his results were not released to him. A further sum of N2,000,000.00 was awarded in favour of the Appellant as costs of litigation, with a direction that the earlier aggregate sum of N750,000.00 awarded should be deducted from the cumulative sum of N20,000,000.00 awarded to the Appellant by the Supreme Court, against the Respondents.
Cross-Appeal Allowed in Part.
Representation
Adebayo A. Victor, for himself, the Appellant.
Ighedosa Imadegbelo with A. Imadegbelo and Samuel Okosun for the Respondents.
Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)
