Quantum of General Damages for Tortious Breach of Academic Duty of Care

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

Obande Festus 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 commenced an action against the Respondents at the Federal High Court in 2011 seeking amongst others, an order for the remarking of the courses he undertook during his degree programme in Mechanical Engineering in the Faculty of Engineering at the 1st Respondent’s University, by independent assessors. The case of the Appellant who appeared in person throughout the proceedings was that the Respondents awarded less Cumulative Points Grade Average (C.G.P.A) to him rather than his true scores, and the CGPA awarded to him did not reflect his true scores that would have qualified him for an award of Second Class (Upper Division) degree in Mechanical Engineering. He claimed that the Respondents erroneously awarded him Second Class (Lower Division). On 16th January 2013, the trial court struck out the Appellant’s claim on the ground that it was statute barred.

Aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which set aside the judgement of the trial Court, and remitted the case back to the trial court for trial on the merit.

During the trial, the Appellant as Plaintiff, testified, tendered documents and called no other witness to support his case. The trial Court expunged certain documents tendered by the Appellant, on grounds that they were inadmissible. The Respondents as Defendants called only one witness who gave evidence in support of their case and tendered certain exhibits. After the close of trial, the trial Court delivered its judgment in which it granted only prayers 5 and 7 of the reliefs claimed by the Appellant and directed the Respondents to have the Appellant’s scripts in courses MEE 202, MEE 307, MEE 308, MEE 301, MEE 305, MEE 309, MEE 311, MEE 302, MEE 352 and MEE 312 remarked by external examiners, and to issue a final result and transcript reflecting the results of the Appellant. The trial Court consequentially awarded the sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) as general damages in favour of the Appellant.

Aggrieved by the decision, the Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal while the Appellant cross appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Respondent’s appeal in its entirety, while the cross-appeal filed by the Appellant succeeded in part only. The Court of Appeal held that the exhibits expunged by the trial court are private documents which do not require certified true copies for their admissibility, contrary to the finding of the trial Court that they were public documents. The Court below also held in essence that, the refusal of the Respondents as Defendants at the trial Court to produce relevant documents despite being given notice to produce, made them liable for the Appellant’s claims. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s award of the sum of N500,000.00 as general damages for the emotional distress and pain suffered by the Appellant, in the course of pursuing the action.

Still dissatisfied, the Respondents filed a further appeal before the Supreme Court. The Respondents’ appeal which was entered as SC/1022/2019 was heard, withdrawn and dismissed on 21st June, 2022. Thereafter, the Respondents filed a Notice of Compliance with the Directions of the Supreme Court in mediation, which contained documents detailing the academic transcripts of the Appellant showing the remarking of his examination scripts by external examiners and a Degree Award of Bachelor of Engineering (B.Eng.) Second Class (Hons) Upper Division, as well as evidence of payment of the respective sums of N500,000.00 and N250,000.00 for damages and costs for an unsuccessful appeal.

Thereafter, the Apex Court proceeded to hear the instant cross-appeal – Appeal No. SC/CV/819/2022, after the Appellant regularised the same following the grant of extension of time within which to file his cross-appeal against the judgement of the Court of Appeal. The Appellant’s complaint principally concerned the quantum of damages, awarded by the Courts below. His contention was that it was inadequate.

Issue for Determination

The Supreme Court formulated a sole issue for determination of the appeal, to wit:

Whether the orders of award of damages by the trial court and the court below were justified in the whole circumstances of this case, as proved by the Appellant.

Arguments

The Appellant argued that the quantum of damages awarded to him was ridiculously low, particularly having regard to the trauma, emotional distress and setback occasioned on him by the Respondents’ breach of their duty of care to him.

The Respondents, on the other hand, argued that the Appellant was not entitled to award of damages because most of the claims of the Appellant were by special damages which the Appellant did not adequately prove.

Court’s Judgement and Rationale

The Supreme Court held that t***here is no doubt that in our laws, a University owes its students a very serious duty of care while they are enrolled to study, and in this regard, the University authority has the legal and the ethical responsibility to ensure that students are treated fairly, supported appropriately, and not subject to foreseeable harm including academic, psychological, or procedural harm during their studies. ***The Court held further that 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. To buttress its reasoning, the Supreme Court made reference to its earlier decision in UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN vAKINOLA (2014) LPELR-23275, as well as the decision of the Court of Appeal in MAUTECH v YARAI (2020) 15 NWLR (PT. 1748) 395.

The Apex Court held it was apparent that the Respondents were in breach of the academic duty of care owed to the Appellant and thus, the Appellant was entitled to general damages as sought by him in relief 8 of his claim at trial. The Court referred to the Respondents’ failure to paste the results of the Appellant’s courses from 200 level and to correct his scores or remark the scores challenged by the Appellant, in spite of the fact that the Appellant had written to the Respondents and travelled back and forth from 2007 to 2011 before they informed him that they would not remark his examination papers.

The Supreme Court held that damages refer to the money paid or awarded to a Claimant or Plaintiff, following a successful claim in a civil action The Court distinguished the various heads of damages and held that with respect to a breach of duty in tort as in this case and not 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 and this could be in terms of general and/or special damages. Referring to its decision in **ROCKONOH PROPERTY CO. LTD v NITEL PLC & ANOR. (2001) FWLR PT. 67, PG. 885 @ 900, **the Supreme Court held that general damages are always made as a claim at large and the quantum need not be pleaded or proved, as it is a reasonable person’s consideration of what is adequate compensation for the non-monetary aspects of the specific harm suffered such as loss, suffering or inconvenience flowing naturally as generally presumed by law from the act of the Defendant.

The Apex Court also held that before a Court begins a meaningful assessment of damages, it must be sure of the nature of the claim 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.

The Supreme Court held that in this case, tortious conduct that attracts indemnity was established and while relief for special damages sought by the Appellant was not adequately proved, the Appellant is entitled to general damages as pecuniary compensation obtainable because of his success in the action for wrong done to him by the Respondents’ refusal for several years to remark his script, issue him transcript and certificate to secure gainful employment and for the pain, stress and hardship suffered, including his inability to access a fully funded scholarship for his Masters Degree Programme in the United Kingdom.

On the quantum of damages granted to the Appellant by the Courts below, their Lordships held that the award of damages in the circumstances of this case cannot be merely perfunctory but must be compensatory, and the award of general damages in the sum of N500,000.00 granted to the Appellant in 2017 was grossly inadequate to fully assuage the emotional and physical suffering caused to the Appellant by the Respondents for about 10 years.

Consequently, the Supreme Court awarded the sum of N18,000,000.00 against the Respondents as damages for breach of the duty of care owed to the Appellant and resultant emotional and physical stress caused to him since 2017 when he finished his course of study at the University, and his results were not released to him. The Apex Court also awarded the sum of N2,000,000.00 as cost of litigation on the said head of claim, and ordered that the sums purportedly already paid to the Appellant by the Respondent should be deducted from the judgement sum and the remainder paid accordingly.

Appeal Allowed in Part.

Representation

Adebayo A. Victor – the Appellant for himself.

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.)