Bayo-Philip Morayo V. Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba – Akoko & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A. 

This is an appeal against the decision of the Federal High Court sitting at Akure, Ondo State delivered on the 13th day of March, 2014 against the appellant, who was the applicant thereat.

The respondents were the respondents to the application at the trial Court.
At the trial, Federal High Court, Akure Judicial Division in Suit No. FHC/AK/CS/3/2013 the applicant’s case was that she was enrolled at the 1st respondent in 2008 to undertake a Post Graduate Diploma Program in Public Administration. She paid all the necessary fees. She took lectures at the 1st respondent’s campus at Iju, Ita – Ogbolu along Ikire Road, Akure North and wrote her 1st semester examinations—

Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the appellant filed a notice of appeal dated 12th of June, 2014 and upon seven (7) grounds.

Before proceeding, it is pertinent to reproduce wholesale, the prayers sought in the applicant/appellants’ motion on notice for the reliefs under the Fundamental Human Rights Enforcement Rules and pursuant her Fundamental Rights Guaranteed Under

1

Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Article 7 of African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Laws, of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. Were as follows:-
A. A declaration that the appellant is entitled to be heard by the respondent in the determination of her civil rights and obligation as a student of the 1st respondent in exercise of her fundamental rights guaranteed under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Articles 7 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
B. A declaration that the failure, omission neglect of the respondents to hear the applicant before determining her civil rights and obligations as a student of the 1st respondent is a flagrant violation of her fundamental rights guaranteed under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and is therefore unconstitutional null and

2

void and of no effect whatsoever.
C. A declaration that all decisions taken by the respondents, their agents servants or privies in the determination of the civil rights and obligation of the applicant a student of the 1st respondent without the opportunity of a fair and adequate hearing constitutes a flagrant violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Article 2 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Right (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and is therefore unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
D. AN ORDER setting aside invalidating, nullifying, canceling, all decisions taken by the respondents without recourse to her right to fair hearing.
E. AN ORDER forthwith re-instating the applicant as a bonafide student of the 1st respondent for refusing to comply with the applicants constitutionally guaranteed right to fair hearing.
F. A PERPERTUAL INJUNCTION restraining the respondent, their servants, agents or privies from implementing, executing, further executing or giving effect to

3

any decisions that may have been taken by the respondents in the hearing or from further violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights.
G. The sum of ONE HUNDRED MILLION NAIRA (N100, 000.000) as damages being special, aggravated, punitive and general damages against the respondents, jointly and severally, for their violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights.
H. AN APOLOGY from the respondents to the applicant to be published and circulated in three national news papers namely, the Punch, the Guardians and the Nigerian Tribune for their violation of the applicants fundamental rights.
I. SUCH FURTHER OR OTHER ORDERS as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

The applicant’s motion on notice was supported by a 19 paragraph affidavit duly deposed to by the applicant to which exhibits ‘A-O’ were attached to the application was a statement setting out the grounds upon which the reliefs of the applicant were sought. There was also a written address attached and dated 14/01/2013.

The respondents filed a 16 paragraph counter – affidavit dated 31-01-2013 deposed to by the 5th respondent in opposition

4