A law student of the University of Nigeria Nsukka, UNN, Enugu campus, Chidi Kingsley Akabogu, has approached the Court of Appeal asking it to set aside the judgement delivered against him by a High Court in Enugu State.
NATIONAL POST recalls that the court dismissed the student's fundamental rights suit and ordered him to pay N300,000 in legal costs to the Faculty of Law, University of Nigeria.
The judgement, delivered on Thursday, 21 August 2025, by the Vacation Judge, Justice Kenneth Okpe, arose from a motion filed by Akabogu challenging the Faculty of Law Examination Malpractice Committee.
Akabogu has now approached the Enugu Division of the Court of Appeal asking it to nullify the judgement of the lower court.
In the Appeal NO: CA/E/2025, dated 21/8/2025, the applicant said "The learned trial judge erred in law when after holding, that the Respondents did not author Exhibit "A", an unsigned document, turned round to hold that the Appellant was not denied his right to fair hearing.
He pointed out through his lawyer, Chidiebere Lucky Obodo, as follows:
"It is the right of the Appellant to be informed formally that a case of examination malpractice has been made out against him by the Respondents.
"When the Respondents had disowned authorship of Exhibit "A", they had by other means conceded that the Appellant was not formally informed of the sitting of the 1" Respondent and other members of her panel that were to hear or consider allegations of examination malpractices levelled against him. In that the said Exhibit "A" was the only medium by which the Appellant was purportedly informed of the allegations of examination malpractices and the sitting of the 1" Respondent.
"That the admission that the letter was not authored by the said Respondents of its own and without more constitutes proof of denial of the Appellant's right to fair hearing as enshrined in section 36 of the constitution of Nigeria 1999 (As amended).
"The learned trial judge erred in law when he held "This court is therefore unable to see the action or actions of the Respondents from which bias or likelihood of the same can be inferred".
"The Appellant's case was hoisted in the main on the fact that he was not formally informed of the sitting of the 1" Respondent and his colleagues scheduled for 29/7/2025 and that he had only gotten information of the sitting through another student. Be that as it may the fact that other students allegedly involved in the malpractice were informed but the Appellant was not informed of the sitting is enough proof of bias against him.
"The Respondents had by implication of their denial of authorship of exhibit "A" admitted that they did not inform the Appellant of the sitting of the panel, their failure to inform him of the date and venue of the sitting constituted the crux of his compliant because that would have amounted to having his hair shaved in his absence. This act sounds in denial of Appellant's right to fair hearing.
"That the learned trial judge thought little of the fact that the Appellant is also a human being who is entitled to certain basic rights as a human being even though he is a student, fundamental rights are so important and are rights that inure to citizens of the land naturally as human beings, they rank above other laws and sentiments.
"That he spoke out boldly demanding to be accorded his rights apportioned to him by the laws of the land cannot and ought not attract to the Appellant such harsh words as being audacious, disrespectful etc. from the learned trial Judge who ought to be guided in his decisions less by sentiments and more by law
"That it is not in doubt that the learned trial judge had taken all these extraneous facts into consideration more than the law in dismissing appellant's case.
"The cost of 300,000 awarded against the Appellant merely because he had approached the court to ventilate his constitutional right under S 36 of the constitution is unreasonable, unwarranted and punitive its essence being to discourage the Appellant from ever approaching the courts ever again to enforce any of his Fundamental Rights. Meanwhile the fundamental rights enforcement procedure rules 2009 encourage litigation in the area of preserving the human rights of citizens of the land."
He, therefore, prayed the appellate court "To allow the appeal (2) Set aside the judgement of the High Court of Enugu State in suit No. E/1007/2025- MR CHIDI AKABOGU VS DR. CLARA OBI OCHIABUTOR AND ANOR dated 21/8/2025 in its entirety. Including the cost of N300,000 awarded against the Appellant and, (3) Grant all the reliefs of the Appellant in the aforesaid suit No E/1007/2025."
