THE University of Oxford has lost its quest to truncate by way of preliminary objection, a legal action filed by a Nigerian Lawyer, Ogedi Ogu challenging the meaning of some words used in their dictionary which had caused him injury.

The High Court of Lagos State, Igbosere presided over by Hon. Justice I.O. Harrison dismissed the University’s preliminary objection.

Oxford University had earlier filed by a preliminary objection through its counsel, Mrs. Funke Adekoya, SAN praying the Court to dismiss the suit for being incompetent.

Meanwhile, the preliminary objection was premised on two legs, it was argued that the suit was filed in disregard to the provision of section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act in issuing and serving a writ of summons.

In addition, it was argued that Oxford University Press, which was joined as 2nd defendant, does not have a juristic personality , which could not sue and be sued because it was only a department under the University of Oxford.

However, Hon. Justice I. O. Harrison in a Ruling dated 30th day of June, 2020 held that the preliminary objection does not succeed on both grounds.

Therefore, the Court held that the suit instituted vide the “writ was validly issued and service was lawful and regular.”

However, the Court ruled that the second limb of the objection is meritorious because Oxford University Press lacks juristic personality.

“The court finds that not being a juristic person, the 2nd defendant can’t be sued and since they are a department of the 1st defendant, whatever affects the 1st defendant will naturally affect and bind on their departments.

“The notice of preliminary objection succeeds partially.”

It would be recalled that the Claimant, Ogu, had dragged Oxford University to Court claiming that Oxford Dictionary wrongly defined the word “mortgagee’’ as the borrower in a mortgage transaction; and “mortgagor’’ as the lender.

By this, he stated that the Oxford given definition is fundamentally wrong and had occasioned damage to his reputation as a Lawyer, when he relied on this definition to offer a legal advise.

Also, he noted that having offered the legal advise, which was later discovered to be wrong by the person, ever since then, all his professional colleagues had stopped seeking legal advise from him.

In consequence thereof, he noted that he wrote the University of Oxford to complain wherein they replied that:

“Our dictionaries are made available as a reference tool only; they are never held out by OUP as being an alternative to seeking independent legal or financial advice, and we cannot take responsibility for an individual’s decision to use them as such.”

Peeved by this, he filed an action seeking 10million naira damages for the injury caused to him in reliance on their dictionary meanings aforesaid.