J. N. Obiegbu V. University of Abuja (2004)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

T. MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.

By an originating motion filed before the Federal High Court holden at Abuja (the lower court), the applicant as appellant herein, prayed the lower court for an order quashing:

(a) The proceedings, findings and reports of the investigation panel and the Examination Misconduct Committee set up by the respondent to investigate the alleged leakage of HIS 102 examination questions to Miss Sandra Onyinyechi Onwuneme as they relate and touch on the applicant.

(b) The proceedings, findings and recommendations of the staff disciplinary committee set up by the respondent to consider the reports of the investigation panel and the Examination Misconduct Committee on the alleged leakage of HIS 102 examination questions to Miss Sandra Onyinyechi Onwuneme as they touch and relate to the applicant.

(c) The warning letter of the 6/7/2000 issued to the applicant by the respondent.

Same having been conducted and/or in total disregard of the applicant’s constitutional right to a fair hearing.

In his statement in support of the originating motion, the appellant stated the grounds upon which his application was premised. The grounds read as follows:

1. The respondent through her agents denied the applicant his constitutional right to a fair hearing throughout the proceedings of the various committees set up by the respondent.
2. The few times the applicant appeared before the committees, he did so as a witness and not as an accused. The applicant was not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine those who (if any) testified against him.
3. The facts giving rise to this appeal as contained in the verifying affidavit in support of the appellant’s originating motion are as follows:

The appellant joined the services of the respondent in 1990 and until 1999 September, when he left the respondent on leave of absence. He was teaching as a senior lecturer in the History Department of the respondent. Between 1990/91 academic session and 1994, he was the examination officer for the History Department. Appellant alleged that there was no case of misconduct against him within the above stated period. He claimed to be teaching HIS 102 with one Mr. Ohiare, his senior and a co-ordinator.

On the 9/8/99, appellant received a letter of same date inviting him to testify before an Examination Misconduct Committee set up by the respondent on 10/8/99. The letter did not allege any form of misconduct against him. On 10/8/99, appellant appeared before the committee and was asked to explain his involvement in the leakage of HIS 012 to one Miss Sandra Onyinyechi Onwuneme. Appellant denied any knowledge of and involvement in the leakage. The committee informed him that his name was mentioned by the student involved. Appellant demanded that the student be brought before the committee to confirm in his presence that he gave her questions or information in respect of the examination on HIS 102 but the committee turned down his request. Appellant further claimed that he did not hear any student testify against him nor was he afforded the opportunity to see any report made against him by any examiner. No examiner testified before the committee against him and he had no opportunity to cross-examine anybody before the committee. He however explained to the committee that in the normal course of lectures and to prepare students for examinations, the department used to give out tutorial questions to the students which questions were discussed with the students as a group before any examination and that was the only procedure adopted in respect of HIS 102. Appellant explained further to the committee that questions were normally discussed at the departmental board of examiners’ meeting attended by all the departmental lecturers. The examination officer and the secretary would produce the final examination questions. Appellant claimed to be neither of the two. He claimed also not to be afforded the opportunity to see the questions allegedly leaked and he was not shown the booklet used by the student which was said to be different from those used by other students.In September, 1999 when appellant was appointed as the Special Assistant to the secretary to the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, he duly applied for leave of absence. His application was not replied until more than two months later. The respondent refused to approve his leave of absence because of his “alleged involvement in an examination misconduct as investigated by the Examination Misconduct Committee and considered by the University Senate at its 68th regular meeting held on 27th July, 1999.

This refusal was conveyed to him through respondent’s letter, reference CA/R/SS/ACA,819 dated 23rd November, 1999. On receipt of the said letter, appellant replied denying that there was a senate decision on any examination misconduct by him. Appellant was then invited by an investigation panel of the respondent on 7/12/99. He however appeared before the said panel on 14/12/99 as against 7/12/99. Appellant was invited also to appear before staff disciplinary committee on 30/5/2000 for alleged improprieties. Appellant appeared on the scheduled date. At the end of the whole saga, appellant received a warning letter dated 6th July, 2004, deploring his role in examination malpractice and that he should desist from further misconduct while in the service of the respondent. That was why he prayed the lower court for the orders set out above. On 20/11/2000, the lower court sat to hear the originating motion but learned counsel for the respondent informed the court that they filed a notice of preliminary objection. Arguments were subsequently taken. In a considered ruling, the learned trial Judge dismissed the application.

Four grounds of appeal were set out in the notice of appeal. In compliance with our rules, parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument, learned counsel for the respondent filed and (argued in his brief) a notice of preliminary objection against the appeal.

In his brief of argument, learned counsel for the appellant distilled the following two issues:

“(a) Whether the appellant was bound to exhaust the internal avenues for seeking redress as provided for in the University of Abuja Decree No. 106 of 1992 before resorting to the law court and if so whether the proper order to make in the circumstances was one of dismissal or striking out?.

(b) Whether the lower court was right to make findings on the substantive suit without first hearing the parties?.