UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN V RASHEEDAT ADESINA

CORAM

BODE RHODES VIVOUR    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN APPELLANTS

 RASHEEDAT ADESINA

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff/Respondent took part in a protest in the Defendant/Appellant institution which led to her invitation to the student’s disciplinary committee by the Senate of the Appellant to answer some questions. The Plaintiff/Respondent however refused to appear before the panel but instituted an action in Court in consequence of which the Defendant/Respondent refused to release the result of the Plaintiff/Respondent till the determination of the suit. At the trial Court, the Plaintiff/Respondent sought inter alia for an injunction restraining the Defendant/Appellant from commencing disciplinary proceedings against her and a declaration that having satisfied the requirements; the Defendant/Appellant does not have the right to withhold her result. The trial Court granted all the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff/Respondent. Aggrieved by the trial Court’s ruling, the Defendant/Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal where the appeal was dismissed. Still dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Defendant/Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

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 ) ?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

COURT CAN INTERFERE WITH DISPUTES BOTHERING ON THE INTERNAL MATTERS OF A UNIVERSITY WHERE THE CIVIL RIGHT OF A PERSON IS AFFECTED

The courts have no jurisdiction to interfere in the internal or domestic matters of a University. Such matters are within the exclusive province of the Senate of the University and the visitor. But where it becomes clear that in resolving domestic disputes the University is found to have breached the civil rights and obligations of the respondent thereby raising issues of public import, the courts would have jurisdiction. PER RHODES-VIVOUR JSC

COURT WILL ENTERTAIN MATTERS BOTHERING ON THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF THE UNIVERSITY WHERE THE STUDENT HAS EXHAUSTED ALL THE AVAILABLE INTERNAL REMEDIES

Courts cannot and will not usurp the functions of the Senate, the Council and the Visitor of the university in the selection of their fit and proper candidates for passing and for the award of certificates, degrees and diplomas. See Akintemi V Onwumechili (1985) 1 NWLR (pt 1) 68, University of Calabar V Esiaga (1997) 4 NWLR (pt 502) 719. However, although the general rule is that consideration for an award of degrees and certificates are in the domestic domain or jurisdiction of the universities, there are however, exceptions. As it has happened in the instant appeal, where the student has exhausted all avenues and entreaties, and the university is adamant as in neither releasing the result nor giving good, substantial and verifiable reasons for withholding the result, even after intervention by the visitor of the university, the student is entitled to approach the court for redress. In such circumstance, the court should not shy away from ensuring that the university authority abides by the law setting up the Institution – PER OKORO JSC

CASES CITED

Magit V Universitv of Agric Makurdi (2005) I9NWLR (Pt. 959) 211Akintemi & ors v Onwumechili & ors 18985 1 NSCC vol16 p 45University of Calabar V Esiaga (1997) 4 NWLR (pt 502) 779Akintemi V Onwumechili (1985) 1 NWLR (pt 1) 68University of Calabar V Esiaga (1997) 4 NWLR (pt 502) 719

STATUTES REFERRED TO

University of Ilorin Act Cap. U 7 Laws of the Federation, 2004.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT