University Of Ilorin V Rasheedat Adesina (2014)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS, J.S.C.

In June 1998, there was a demonstration by the students of the University of Ilorin which took place in the Senior Staff quarters located in the main campus of the University. Subsequent to the incident, the Senate of the University set up a committee to investigate the matter and submit a report and recommendations for consideration by it. In the report submitted by the committee, the respondent and other students were indicted and were referred to the Students Disciplinary Committee (SDC). Although the respondent together with the other students were formally invited to appear before the Students Disciplinary Committee she failed to do so and instead instituted an action against the University claiming certain reliefs together with injunction restraining the Defendant from commencing disciplinary proceedings against her. The court granted an interim injunction. The reliefs which the Plaintiff sought are:-

(a) A DECLARATION that the Defendant is statutorily obliged to grant degrees to persons who have pursued a course of study approved by it and satisfied such other requirements as it may lay down.

(b) A DECLARATION that it is illegal for the Defendant, either directly or surreptitiously, to require any person to satisfy any requirement as to religious or political persuasion to be entitled to become or continue to be a student and the holder of any degree of the Defendant – University.

(c) A DECLARATION that the Plaintiff, having pursued and completed a course of study for the award of a B.Sc. Degree in Chemistry, and also satisfied all other requirements prescribed by the Defendant and made known by it to the Plaintiff, is entitled to be awarded the same.

(d) A DECLARATION that the Defendant is not entitled to keep the Plaintiff incommunicado as to the reason for the withholding of her academic records and degree.

(e) A DECLARATION that the withholding of the Plaintiffs academic records since 2001 when she completed the course of study prescribed by the Defendant for the award of a B.Sc. Degree in Chemistry without official explanation is capricious, vindictive, oppressive, illegal, unlawful, and constitutes a gross abuse of the Defendant’s statutory powers and public duties invested on / in it in the University of Ilorin Act, Cap. 455 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990.

(f) A DECLARATION that the withholding of the Plaintiffs academic records since 2001 when she completed the course of study prescribed by the Defendant for the award of a B.Sc. Degree in Chemistry without official explanation is punitive and in breach of the Defendant’s right (sic) to a hearing before condemnation and punishment.

(g) AN ORDER of specific performance of the agreement brokered at the instance of the defendant’s visitor, the President Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, whereby the parties agreed that the Plaintiff shall apologise for his (sic) student union activities and pay a restitution in the sum of N1,000.00 to the Defendant and the defendant in consideration thereof shall restore to the Plaintiff all the rights reserved for her as a member of the Defendant – University under the University of Ilorin Act, Cap. 455 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 which agreement was subsequently notified by the parties to and judicially noticed by the Court on the 29th day of October 2001 in Suit No. FHC/IL/M17/98.

(h) AN ORDER of mandamus compelling the Defendant to remove forthwith all the administrative (or like) impediments to and to take all the administrative (or like) steps required for the release of the Plaintiffs academic records including the Degree to which her completed course of study with the Defendant entitles her, and for the release of all said academic record and Degree forthwith.

(i) DAMAGES on a footing of exemplary damages in the sum of N20,000,000.00.

The Defendant was aggrieved and appealed against the order of injunction. During the pendency of the appeal, the President who is the visitor to the University intervened which led to the setting up of the panel called “Resolution Committee on Politically Victimized and Rusticated Student.” Following the resolutions made by the committee, the Plaintiff who had been rusticated following her suspension from the University was recalled after she had written to the University authorities and apologised over the role she played in the demonstration in addition to paying a fine of N1,000.00 for the damages caused during the demonstration. Despite her recall her results were never released, hence she has not been able to graduate since 2001. This left the Plaintiff with no option but return to court. During the trial the Plaintiff testified as PW1 and tendered some documents. Five witnesses also testified for the Defendant. During address the Defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the court which was resolved in favour of the Plaintiff. The trial court in its consideration of the case on the merit found in favour of the Plaintiff. The Defendant failed in its appeal to the Court of Appeal, Ilorin and sought leave to appeal to this court in a motion dated 23rd day of April 2008. The appellant subsequently filed the Notice of Appeal on 27/5/2008 pursuant to leave granted on 19/5/2008. (See pages 417 – 420 of the records). On 5/6/2008, the appellant filed another Notice of Appeal (See page 428 of the records). The respondent objected to the latter Notice of Appeal filed on 5/6/2008 on the ground that no leave was obtained to file the additional grounds of appeal. The appellant filed a reply brief in response to the preliminary objection. The two notices of appeal were filed within time and so the appellant did not need any leave of court before he could file the second notice of appeal on 5/6/2008. The ground of appeal relates to issue of jurisdiction which can be raised without first obtaining the leave of court. The preliminary objection lacks merit and it is accordingly overruled.

The appellant submitted three issues for determination. The issues are as follows:-

1. Whether having regard to the facts and circumstance of this case, the court below was wrong in holding that the trial court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the case. (Ground 1 of Original Notice and additional Ground of Appeal).
2. Whether the appellant resiled from the agreement reached with its visitor when there was no evidence that the respondent was prevented from continuing her studentship (Ground 2 of Original Notice of Appeal)
3. Whether the court below was not wrong in holding that bias can be reasonably inferred from the intransigence of the appellant (Ground 3 of Original Notice of Appeal). Learned counsel for the respondent distilled two issues for determination from the two notices of appeal filed on 27/5/2008 and 5/6/2008 respectively as follows:-
4. Whether the lower court misdirected itself on the facts in affirming the trial court’s findings of fact

(a) That Respondent’s recourse to this court action was because the appellant had frustrated all efforts by her to obtain redress internally;