Lagos State University, Ojo V. National Universities Commission (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment)

With the leave of the Federal High Court (hereinafter to be referred as the Lower Court) which was granted on the 9th of January 2007, the Appellant herein, by an Originating Motion on Notice dated 10th January 2007 sought for the following reliefs:-

1. A declaration that the decisions of the Respondent as contained in its letters of 3rd October 2006 Ref. No.NUC/ES/426/Vol.III/195 and of 13th December 2006 Ref.NUC/ES/426/Vol. VIII/195 to the Applicant purportedly closing the Applicant’s external campuses are ultra vires, illegal, in bad faith, invalid, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

2, An Order of certiorari, to remove for the purpose of being quashed and quashing the decisions contained in the Respondent’s said letters of 3rd October 2006 with Ref. No. NUC/ES/426/Vol.III/195 and 13th December 2006 Ref. NUC/ES/426A/Vol.VIII/195 which purportedly closed down the Applicant’s external campuses,

3. An Order of injunction restraining the Respondent whether by itself, its servants and/or agents including its Executive Secretary from further implementing or giving any further effect in any manner whatsoever to its decisions purportedly closing and/or directing the closing down of the Applicants external campuses’
4. An Order of mandatory injunction directed at the Respondent whether by itself, its servants and/or agents including its Executive Secretary to withdraw forthwith all publications giving effect to the decisions purportedly closing down and/or directing the closure of the Applicant’s external campuses.
5. Alternatively to prayer 2 on order setting aside the said decisions of the Respondent.

After having heard the parties in their argument, the lower court held as follows:-

“That even though the Respondent has the powers to issue guidelines to the Applicant and even to close the Applicant, the Applicant was not given a fair hearing before the decision was taken by the Respondent in exhibit KA1 and consequently set aside the decision taken by the Respondent without first giving the Applicant a fair hearing and without complying with the requirement of gazetting any guidelines in the Federal Gazette as required by Section 24(2) of the Education Act’ I so order.”

The Appellant as the Applicant at the lower court is dissatisfied with the ruling of the lower court. Being dissatisfied and aggrieved, it brought this appeal. Its notice of appeal dated 28th August 2007 and filed on the 30th of August 2007 contains three grounds of appeal, which I reproduce hereunder without their particulars as follows:-

“(i) The learned trial judge erred in law when she held that under the provisions of Education (National Minimum Standards and Establishment of Institutions) Act, the Respondent has the powers to close the Appellant or its campuses’

(ii) The learned trial judge erred in law when she held as follows:-

“…The Respondent has the powers…even to close the Applicant…”

(iii) The learned trial judge erred in law in refusing to hold not only that the Respondent has no Power to close down or order the closure of the campuses of the Appellant but also that the Respondent’s decision to close and/or ordering the closure of the external campuses of the Appellant purportedly in exercise of such Power was altra vires, illegal, invalid, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.”

In line with the relevant Rules of this Court, parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument which were variously adopted on the 3rd day of October 2010, when the appeal came up for hearing. Two issues for the determination of this appeal were formulated for the Appellant.

These issues read as follows:-

“1. Whether the learned trial judge was right to have held that, the Respondent has the powers to close the Appellant under the provisions of the Education/National Minimum Standards and Establishment of Institutions) Act,

2. Whether or not the Court was right in not granting the reliefs 1, 2, 3, and 4 as sought in the originating motion on notice”

For the Respondent, two issues were also formulated for the determination of this appeal. These issues read as follows:-