Joint Admission & Matriculations Board V. Nkeiruka Orji & Ors (2004)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI, J.C.A.

This is an appeal by the 4th defendant/appellant against the judgment of  Lawson, J., while sitting in the Federal High Court holden at Ibadan on 20th November, 2000. The 1st – 3rd defendants also appealed but did not pursue same with due diligence; it seems.

Two suits were filed by way of originating summons at the trial court. The 1st suit with No. FHC/IB/CS/94/99 was filed by the 1st – 9th plaintiffs/respondents against the 1st – 3rd defendants/respondents and defendant/appellant. The 2nd suit with No. FHC/ IB/CS/2000 was filed by the 10th – 16th plaintiffs/respondents against the stated 1st – 3rd defendants/respondents and 4th defendant/appellant. The two suits relate to the same issues. The plaintiffs also requested similar reliefs. The two suits were consolidated for hearing in one fell swoop; it seems.

The claims put up by the plaintiffs against the defendants at the trial court read as follows:-
“1) A declaration that the plaintiffs cannot be denied of their right of admission into the Faculty of Law. University of Ibadan having satisfied all the requirements laid down in the guidelines for admissions as presented to him by the Joint Admissions and Matriculations Board (JAMB).
2) A declaration that the purported decision of the 1st-3rd defendants not to admit or register the plaintiffs into the Faculty of Law, University of Ibadan is void having being (sic) predicated on a misapprehension of the true position of the Guidelines for admission to First Degree Courses in Nigerian Universities for 1998/99 Session.
3) An order directing the defendants to allow the plaintiffs to proceed with their registration formalities into the Faculty of Law, University of Ibadan.
4) An order of perpetual injunction restraining either by themselves or agents or through their servants or privies or howsoever called from disturbing and or disallowing the plaintiffs from being registered and accorded all the rights duties and privileges of a bona fide student of the Faculty of Law, University of Ibadan.”

It is desirable to state briefly the facts of the matter which culminated into this appeal. The plaintiffs/respondents were candidates for admission into the Faculty of Law, University of Ibadan through the appellant (JAMB). They were given the guidelines for admissions to First Degree Course in Nigerian Universities for 1998/99 session. They sat for the U.M.E. Examination and were subsequently given Provisional Admissions having met the cut off score in U.M.E. Examinations into the said University. They commenced registration in the Faculty of Law, University of Ibadan. Soon after, it was discovered by the University Authorities that all the plaintiffs/respondents did not obtain the minimum requirement of pass at credit level in Literature in English as contained in the Brochure for 1998/99. They were advised to withdraw from the University. They felt aggrieved and went to the lower court for redress. The substance of the issues raised is whether the requirement of a credit pass in Literature in English is a condition precedent for admission into the Faculty of Law, University of Ibadan.

The learned trial Judge was ably addressed by learned counsel for the parties. In his considered judgment handed out on 20th November. 2000. the learned trial Judge found that Literature in English was a condition precedent for admission as contained in the 1998/99 guidelines. The plaintiffs did not meet up with the requirement. Curiously, he gave judgment in their favour and ordered that they should sit for WAEC or GCE examinations within two years of his judgment and ensure that they obtained credit in Literature in English or alternatively, they should take remedial courses in Latin relevant to Law. The learned trial Judge capped same with an order that any of the plaintiffs who failed to meet his own yardstick should withdraw from the Law programme.

The 4th defendant felt irked with the stance posed by the learned trial Judge and has appealed to this court. The 1st notice of appeal dated 7th February, 2001, filed by 1st – 3rd defendants/appellants at pages l75-l76 of the transcript record of appeal carries the omnibus ground of appeal to the effect ‘that the judgment is against the weight of evidence’. The 2nd notice of appeal dated 14th February, 2001, at pages 177-179 of the record of appeal, filed by the 4th defendant/appellant carries two grounds of appeal. The two notices of appeal are in order as they were both filed within the statutorily prescribed period.

The relief sought in the first notice of appeal reads as follows:-
“An order al lowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the lower court by dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims in its entirety.”

In the 2nd notice of appeal, the relief sought was fine-tuned as it reads as follows:-
“An order reversing the judgment of the lower court and holding that the appellant was not negligent in offering Provisional Admissions to the plaintiffs/respondents and that the withdrawal of the said admissions is proper in law and in equity.”

The 10th – 16th plaintiffs felt unhappy with some findings of credit pass in Literature in English within two years of judgment.”

In respect of the appeal filed by the appellants, the issues distilled on behalf of the 1st – 16th plaintiffs/respondents read as follows:-
“(i)  Whether the learned trial was right in holding that the defendants/appellants were negligent in granting provisional admissions to the plaintiffs/respondents.
(ii) Whether the learned trial Judge rightly held that the withdrawal of the plaintiffs/respondents’ admissions was inequitable.
(iii) Whether the judgment is against the weight of evidence.”

As the only issue formulated in the cross-appeal appears to have bearing with issue 2 of the 4th defendant/appellant as reproduced above, let me reproduce same here for a clear focus. It reads as follows:-
“Whether from the provisions of the 1998/1999 JAMB Brochure, a student applying for law studies in the University of Ibadan must have a credit pass in Literature in English.”

The 4th defendant/appellant’s issue 1 appears to have the same tune with the only sustained issue of the 1st – 3rd defendants/appellants/respondents. I shall however, rely on issue 1 couched on behalf of the 4th defendant/appellant.

Learned counsel for the 4th defendant/appellant, with all seriousness, submitted that the argument that the appellant should have checked to see if the respondents had the required compulsory subjects before offering them provisional admissions cannot hold water in view of the fact that the letters of admission issued to the plaintiffs/respondents were made contingent to certain factors. He felt that the action of the appellant in granting provisional admission to the plaintiffs/respondents in the circumstance cannot be said to be negligent since it had stated in clear terms the conditions upon which such provisional admission was offered. He cited Onagoruwa v. JAMB (2001) 10 NWLR (Pt.722) 742.