Download PDF
JUDGMENT This suit was first filed by the Claimant in the Federal High Court Abuja Division on 27th September 2017. But by an order of transfer made on 31st January 2018, the Federal High Court transferred the suit to this court for the reason that it is this court that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. Upon the transfer of the matter to this court, the Claimant filed an amended Complaint and Statement of Facts on 29th March 2018 but deemed filed on 24th May 2018. In the amended Complaint, the Claimant sought the following reliefs against the Defendants: 1. A Declaration that the Claimant’s PhD in Economics awarded by the University of Lagos in April 1996 is a valid and authentic academic PhD and this fact should be communicated to the Claimant by the Defendants the same way they conveyed its nullification. 2. A Declaration that the letter from the 2nd Defendant dated 2nd August 2017 with Ref no. FME/TE/CU/4C/III/303 in so far as it purports to apply to the Claimant is invalid, null and void. 3. A Declaration that the letter from the University of Lagos dated 10th February 2017 with Ref no. AD/REG/G/3 confirming the award of PhD in Economics to the Claimant is valid, authentic, lawful, and in full compliance with its own internal requirements and the requirements of the 1st Defendant at the time the Claimant was given admission in 1989/1990 and at the time of the Claimant’s Doctoral award in 1996. 4. A Declaration that the Benchmark Minimum Academic Standards [BMAS] for postgraduate programs in social sciences 2011 issued by the 1st Defendant cannot retrospectively apply to the Claimant’s PhD in Economics obtained 15 years earlier in April 1996. 5. An Order compelling and directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants, whether by itself or acting through their agents to give positive effect to the letter from the university of Lagos dated 10th February 2017 with Ref no. AD/REG/G/3 and confirm the Claimant’s PhD from the University of Lagos as an authentic academic PhD valid for employment in any academic setting including universities in Nigeria [whether Federal, State or Private]. 6. An Order compelling the 1st and 2nd Defendants to pay the Claimant the sum of N20,000,000 as general damages for the loss of earnings, embarrassment, setback, frustrations and psychological trauma the Claimant has undergone. 7. An Order compelling the 1st Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N2,000,000 being the cost of this suit. 8. An Order compelling and directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants to forthwith tender unreserved apology in two national dailies for the unwarranted embarrassment the Defendants have caused the Claimant. Upon the close of pleadings, hearing commenced on the 13th day of November 2018. The Claimant testified for herself as CW1. One Mohammed Asuku Audu, a Deputy Director, Academic Standards, testified for the 1st Defendant as DW1. Neither the 2nd nor the 3rd Defendants called any evidence. Hearing ended on the 23rd day of May 2019 and parties were ordered to file final written addresses in accordance with the rules of this court. Parties complied accordingly, and the respective final addresses were duly adopted on the 8th day of July 2019. CLAIMANT’S CASE When hearing commenced in the suit on 13th November 2018, the Claimant gave evidence in support of her case. Her evidence is in line with the facts pleaded in her amended statement of facts and her reply to the 1st Defendant’s amended statement of defence. The case of the Claimant upon which she sought the above reliefs is that she holds a PhD in Economics from the University of Lagos in 1996. In August and October 2015, she applied to the Federal University Lafia and Federal University Wukari for the post of Reader and Professor in Economics department but these Universities turned down her application on the ground that she cannot teach in the department of Economics because she obtained her first degree in Agriculture. The Universities also said the Claimant will be disqualified as academic staff when the 1st Defendant comes around for accreditation of the academic programs. At separate dates in October 2015, the Claimant met the 1st Defendant’s Executive Secretary, the Director of Academic Standards and the Deputy Director of Academic Standards for clarification. These officials of the 1st Defendant confirmed to the Claimant that the positions of Federal University Lafia and Federal University Wukari was correct and further told the Claimant that in view of the 1st Defendant’s Benchmark Minimum Academic Standards [BMAS] for postgraduate programs in Social Sciences 2011, the Claimant’s PhD credentials were invalid and of no academic consequence in any Nigerian University. The 1st Defendant also informed the Claimant that she can only be employed as Academic Staff in the Faculty of Agriculture with her Master’s Degree obtained 1987. By a letter dated 2nd August 2017 to the Claimant, the 2nd Defendant confirmed the nullification of the of the Claimant’s academic PhD in Economics by the 1st Defendant. The actions of the Defendants seek to unjustly and unfairly set the Claimant’s career back by 28 years. The 1st Defendant’s BMAS for postgraduate programs in social sciences 2011 was made to have retroactive effect and it is contrary to the constitution. The Claimant had applied to other Federal Universities for appointment as Reader and Professor since 2015 but she cannot follow up because of the position of the Defendants. The University of Lagos and its PhD program in Economics were accredited by the 1st Defendant at the time the Claimant was admitted and awarded a PhD in Economics. The Claimant also met the requirement for admission for the PhD program. In a letter dated 10th February 2017, the University of Lagos confirmed to the 2nd Defendant the award of PhD in Economics to the Claimant in April 1996. The Claimant tendered some documents in evidence to support her case. 1ST DEFENDANT’S CASE Only the 1st Defendant put up a defence in the case. The amended statement of defence of the 1st Defendant was filed on 21st June 2018. The 1st Defendant called one witness in defence of the claims. The witness, Mohammed Audu, the Deputy Director of Academic Standards in the 1st Defendant, testified that the 1st Defendant did not instruct the two Federal Universities not to employ the Claimant because the 1st Defendant does not dictate to any University as to who to employ. However, the 1st Defendant has the mandate to give guidelines to Nigerian Universities to employ personnel with relevant skills and specialisation to teach students. The Claimant did not possess Bachelor’s Degree in Economics which is the foundation in Economics that is required to teach Economics in Nigerian Universities. The Claimant’s 1st degree is in Agriculture (Animal Science). This is not the same as a degree in Economics. The Benchmark Minimum Academic Standards for under graduate programs in Nigerian Universities for social sciences April 2007, the Claimant is not qualified to teach Economics in any Nigerian University as she did not have first degree in Economics. The Claimant is only qualified to teach in Agriculture Department with her Masters’ degree since she has first degree in Agriculture. Economics and Agricultural Economics are not the same. While Economics is under social sciences, Agricultural Economics is under faculty of Agricultural Sciences. The entry requirements for these courses are not the same taking comparisons from the approved minimum academic standards in social sciences for all Nigerian Universities July 1989; the Benchmark Minimum Academic Standards for postgraduate programs in Agricultural Sciences in Nigerian Universities November 2011 and the Minimum Academic Standards for undergraduate programs in Agricultural sciences in Nigerian Universities. The 1st Defendant has not nullified the Claimant’s PhD in Economics. It is only the Senate of the awarding university that can do that. The 1st Defendant does not also question the authenticity of the Claimant’s PhD degree. The 1st Defendant only insists that since the Claimant does not have 1st degree in Economics, she has no qualification to teach Economics in Nigerian Universities. The policy cannot be changed because of the Claimant. BMAS is not made to have retrospective effect. It has been the policy of the 1st Defendant that a lecturer cannot teach a course in which he does not have a first degree. 1ST DEFENDANT’S ADDRESS The 1st Defendant in its final written address formulated the following issues for determination: 1. Whether this honorable court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit. 2. Whether the Claimant has proved her case on preponderance of evidence to enable this Court enter judgment in her favour. On Issue One, learned counsel for the 1st Defendant placed reliance on Section 254C (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration) Act 2010 and submitted that none of the claims of the Claimant is covered by the jurisdiction of this Court. Counsel argued that the Claimant's claim is mainly on the validity or otherwise of the Policy of the 1st Defendant which bars her from using her PhD in Economics to teach Economics in Nigerian Universities due to her failure to obtain Bachelor's degree in Economics and Master's degree in Economics before her PhD in Economics. Counsel urged the court to decline determining this suit since it has no jurisdiction to do so as the court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit notwithstanding that it was transferred from the Federal High Court to this Court. On Issue Two, the 1st Defendant counsel argued that the Claimant has fallen short of these required qualifications and is not qualified to teach Economics in any Nigerian University. Counsel submitted that the 1st Defendant has the power to set Benchmark Minimum Academic Standards, which it did in the documents tendered as Exhibits L, M, N & O before this Court. Counsel argued that the 1st Defendant cannot lower the Standard below the minimum to accommodate the Claimant's interest and urged the court to so hold. I have extensively reviewed and evaluated the case of the 1st Defendant and the entire arguments, submissions and authorities proffered by learned counsel for the 1st Defendant in his final written address. Reference will be made to them if necessary, in the course of this judgment. CLAIMANT’S ADDRESS The Claimant in her final written address adopted the two issues formulated by the 1st Defendant in their final written address. On Issue One, learned counsel for the Claimant submitted and urged the court to be persuaded by the decisions of Justice Ojukwu of the Federal High Court who had ruled on this issue in a prior preliminary objection in the suit. Counsel argued that this court has the jurisdiction to entertain this suit as the case before this Court comes within the contemplation of Section 254C (1) (a) of the 1999 Constitution, and has nothing to do with any policy on paper. On Issue Two, the Claimant’s counsel urged the court to hold that the Claimant has proven her case on the preponderance of evidence to entitle her to the reliefs sought. Counsel submitted that the decision barring the Claimant from teaching Economics was not pursuant to any extant laws as none of the documents tendered in evidence by the 1st Defendant support its case. Counsel contended that the BMAS makes NO provision for Guidelines for University Lecturers whatsoever since they are not Outcomes of Academic Programs. Counsel urged the court to find in favour of the Claimant and grant all the reliefs sought. Again, I have extensively reviewed and evaluated the case of the Claimant and the entire arguments, submissions and authorities proffered by learned counsel for the Claimant in his final written address. Reference will be made to them if necessary, in the course of this judgment. COURT’S DECISION. In the final written address of the 1st Defendant, learned counsel for the 1st Defendant raised the issue whether this court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit. In his submissions, learned counsel for the 1st Defendant argued that the complaint of the Claimant in this suit is about the policy of the 1st Defendant which bars her from teaching Economics in any Nigerian University. The Claimant was at no time an employee of any of the Defendants and her case has nothing to do with employer-employee dispute. As such, the suit does not fall into the subject matters upon which this court has jurisdiction in Section 254C of the 1999 Constitution. It was further submitted that, in view of the content of the claims which challenges the validity of the policy of the 1st Defendant barring the Claimant from using her PhD in Economics to teach Economics in Nigerian Universities, the Federal High Court is the court with jurisdiction over such matters under Section 251 (1) [r] of the 1999 Constitution. In response to the issue whether this court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit, learned counsel for the Claimant referred to paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Statement of Facts and Relief No. 5 in the Claimant’s final written address, and submitted that the subject matter of the suit is covered in Section 254C [1] [a] of the 1999 Constitution and this court has the jurisdiction to entertain and determine the suit. I mentioned the fact at the beginning of this judgment that this suit was transferred to this court from the Federal High Court. The order of transfer was made following the decision of the FHC on a notice of preliminary objection filed by the 2nd Defendant challenging the jurisdiction of the FHC to entertain the matter said to be labour related and falls within the jurisdiction of this court in Section 254C of 1999 Constitution [as amended]. The Federal High Court agreed that it is this court that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit and consequently transferred the suit to this court. The 1st Defendant now contends that the case of the Claimant is not a labour dispute and it does not does not fall into the subject matters which this court has jurisdiction in Section 254C of the 1999 Constitution. The issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time in proceedings, and even for the first time on appeal. Jurisdiction is a threshold issue in the adjudicatory process of the courts. It is so fundamental that it has been described as the blood that gives life to the survival of an action in a court of law. The existence or absence of jurisdiction in the court goes to the root of the matter and it forms the foundation of adjudication. If a court lacks jurisdiction, it also lacks the necessary competence to try the issue before it. See INAKOJU vs. ADELEKE (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 423 at 588; CHIEF ETUEDOR UTIH vs. JACOB U. ONOYIVWE [1991] 1 NWLR (Pt. 166) 166; DONGTOE vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, PLATEAU STATE [2001] 9 NWLR (Pt. 717) 132; OSOH vs. UNITY BANK PLC (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 690) 1245 at 1271. Without any doubt, no court can entertain a matter without having the requisite jurisdiction. Therefore, I will have to determine if the case of the Claimant comes within the jurisdiction of this court before I proceed any further in this judgment. I have examined the case of the Claimant and the reliefs sought by her. There are two aspects to her case. The first one is with regard to her unemployability to lecture in Economics in Nigeria Universities using her PhD degree in Economics from the University of Lagos because of the 1st Defendant’s Benchmark Minimum Academic Standards for postgraduate programs in Social Sciences 2011. Relief 4 sought by the Claimant is specifically on this aspect of her case for the court to determine if the BMAS 2011 applies to her. The second aspect of the Claimant’s case is as to the validity of her PhD degree in Economics obtained from the University of Lagos. The Claimant’s relief 2 is directed at the letter from the 2nd Defendant dated 2nd August 2017 with Ref no. FME/TE/CU/4C/III/303. This letter is Exhibit J. The content has to do with the genuineness or validity of the Claimant’s PhD degree in Economics. Then in Relief 3, the Claimant sought this court to declare that the letter from the University of Lagos dated 10th February 2017 with Ref No. AD/REG/G/3 confirming the award of PhD in Economics to the Claimant is valid, authentic, lawful and awarded the degree in full compliance with its own internal requirements and in Relief 5, the Claimant sought an order directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants to give positive effect to the letter from the university of Lagos dated 10th February 2017. Let me mention that the said letter dated 10th February 2017 by the University of Lagos is not even put in evidence by the Claimant in this case but in view of the content of Reliefs 3 and 5 and the averments of the Claimant in paragraph 17 of her statement of facts, the letter was written by the University of Lagos to the 2nd Defendant to confirm the validity of the Claimant’s PhD degree in Economics. Therefore, reliefs 1, 2, 3 and 5 sought by the Claimant are in respect of the 2nd aspect of her case. The jurisdiction of this court in Section 254C [1][a] of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) include any cause or matter which is connected with any labour or employment issues, among others, and matters incidental or connected thereto. It is the Claimant’s case that she was refused employment by two Federal Universities because of the 1st Defendant’s Benchmark Minimum Academic Standards [BMAS] for postgraduate programs in social sciences 2011 which prevents her from being employed to teach Economics in Nigerian Universities with her PhD in Economics having not obtained a 1st degree in Economics. This allegation touches on employment dispute, even though there was no employment relationship between the parties. In so far as there is an issue which has to do with or affects employment rights of any person, the NICN has the jurisdiction to entertain the case. Accordingly, where it is alleged that there is an action or direction of any of the Defendants affecting the employment status of the Claimant, the NIC has jurisdiction to entertain that aspect of the case. Reliefs 1, 2, 3, and 5 have to do with this court pronouncing on the validity of the Claimant’s PhD Degree in Economics. This aspect of the case and these reliefs are clearly outside the purview of the court’s jurisdiction. This court does not have jurisdiction to determine whether an academic degree was validly issued/obtained or not. This is in addition to the fact that the letter from the University of Lagos dated 10th February 2017 on which reliefs 3 and 5 are to be determined is not in evidence. The court cannot make a pronouncement on a document not before the court. Consequently, I hereby strike out reliefs 1, 2, 3 and 5. I will now consider the aspect of the Claimant’s case which is within the jurisdiction of this court. That is to determine whether the Claimant has proved that the Benchmark Minimum Academic Standards [BMAS] for postgraduate programs in social sciences 2011 issued by the 1st Defendant does not apply to her PhD in Economics. The case of the Claimant is that she has a PhD in Economics from the University of Lagos in 1996 but her first degree was in Agriculture [Animal Science]. When she applied to the Federal University Lafia and Federal University Wukari for employment in 2015, she was refused employment on the ground that she cannot teach in the department of Economics because she obtained her first degree in Agriculture. The Federal University Lafia and Federal University Wukari based their refusal on the guidelines issued to the universities by the 1st Defendant. The Claimant subsequently met with the Executive Secretary, the Director of Academic Standards and the Deputy Director of Academic Standards of the 1st Defendant for clarification. These officials of the 1st Defendant confirmed to the Claimant that in view of the 1st Defendant’s Benchmark Minimum Academic Standards [BMAS] for postgraduate programs in Social Sciences 2011, the Claimant cannot be employed by any Nigerian University as academic staff to teach Economics with her PhD degree in Economics because she did not have her 1st degree in Economics. The Claimant contended that the said BMAS 2011 is ultra vires the Constitution and nothing therein prevented her from being employed to teach Economics in Nigerian Universities with her PhD degree. The Claimant pleaded the BMAS 2011 and in Relief 4, she sought this court to declare that the Benchmark Minimum Academic Standards [BMAS] for postgraduate programs in social sciences 2011 issued by the 1st Defendant cannot retrospectively apply to her PhD in Economics obtained in April 1996. From the case of the Claimant, the policy which was alleged to have affected her ability to be employed to teach Economics is the Benchmark Minimum Academic Standards [BMAS] for postgraduate programs in social sciences 2011. The Claimant’s case is tailored around this 2011 BMAS Policy and it is this specific policy she wants this court to consider in respect of her claim in Relief 4. Although she pleaded the document, she did not tender it in evidence. The 1st Defendant tendered some other policies in evidence. Exhibit L is BMAS for postgraduate programs in Agricultural Sciences 2011. Exhibit M is BMAS for undergraduate programs in Agriculture 2007. Exhibit N is BMAS for undergraduate programs in Social Sciences 2007 and Exhibit O is BMAS in Social Sciences for all Universities 1989. There is no BMAS for postgraduate programs in social sciences 2011 among the policies tendered by the 1st Defendant. The implication is that the BMAS for postgraduate programs in Social Sciences 2011 is not before the court in this action. I have not seen the said BMAS for postgraduate programs in Social Sciences 2011 in order to consider its content whether or not it has the effect the Claimant said the Defendants subscribed to it. The Claimant’s cause of action in respect of this aspect of her case is the said BMAS for postgraduate programs in Social Sciences 2011 and the effect the 1st Defendant told her the policy has on her employability with her PhD degree in Economics. Without the said BMAS for postgraduate programs in Social Sciences 2011 before me, I cannot determine Relief 4 sought by the Claimant. The Claimant did not found her case on any of the other BMAS policies tendered in evidence by the 1st Defendant, neither did she seek any relief relating to any of them. Her case is specific on the BMAS for postgraduate programs in Social Sciences 2011. It is clear to me that the Claimant has not proved any case which will entitle this court to grant Relief 4. The remaining Reliefs 6, 7 and 8 sought by the Claimant are ancillary to the major claims. In view of the foregoing findings and holdings of this court, these reliefs fail automatically. In conclusion, while I strike out Reliefs 1, 2, 3 and 5, reliefs 4, 6, 7 and 8 are dismissed. Parties shall bear their respective costs. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge