The Plaintiff mounted the instant action on 23rd June, 2016 for the following reliefs:
a. An order directed at the Defendant to produce the Plaintiff’s Public Sector Accounting and Finance paper and re-mark it.
b. An order directed at the Defendant to use its own new grading system in the Students Handbook for Graduate Degrees for 2015 to calculate his grade point average.
c. Special and general damages for trespass.
d. Costs including legal costs.
The Plaintiff’s action was responded to after entry of appearance by the Defendant on 28th June, 2016, by the filing of a Statement of Defence on 13th October, 2016. The Plaintiff filed a Reply to the defence on 24th November, 2016, which closed pleadings.
THE CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF
The Plaintiff in his Statement of Claim averred that at all material times, he was a student of the Defendant institution.
According to the Plaintiff, he was admitted to the Defendant’s institution in the 2012/2013 academic year to pursue a Master’s Degree in Business Administration, specialising in Accounting and Taxation for two (2) years.
The Plaintiff further states that the Defendant, on 25th June, 2015. sent him an e-mail of a list of students who were slated to graduate on 27th June, 2015, with him the Plaintiff, who was also expected to graduate at the said time, excluded from those on the list. The Plaintiff further avers that the Defendant did not give him any further information as to why he could not graduate with his colleagues on 27th June, 2018.
The Plaintiff continues that sometime in October 2014, he petitioned the Defendant for a remark of his Public Sector Accounting and Finance paper, which during the pendency of the suit, the Plaintiff states has not been done and is still pending whilst the Defendant went ahead to hold a graduation ceremony for his colleagues.
According to the Plaintiff, he did an investigation into why he was exempted from graduating with his colleagues and found out that there were anomalies with his final results. Based on his findings, the Plaintiff says he caused his Lawyers to formally write to the Defendant on the 31st of August, 2015 and demanded that the Defendant resolves the anomalies with his final results.
The Plaintiff avers also that the letter was responded to by the Defendant by a letter dated 2nd October, 2015, in which it was proposed that the parties met and settled the issues raised. According to the Plaintiff, he agreed to the Defendant’s proposal to re-mark his
