Schools lack power to withhold exam results – SC

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 […]

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 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 Victimised and Rusticated Students.” 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 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.
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.
3. Whether the court below was not wrong in holding that bias can be reasonably inferred from the intransigence of the appellant.
This is the linchpin issue No. 1 of this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that three conditions as laid down in the locus classicus of Madukolu vs. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341 must co-exist for a court to exercise jurisdiction in a matter and where any of the conditions is lacking, the court would be without jurisdiction to entertain the matter and anything done in the circumstance would be of no effect.
He submitted that the award of a university degree is a domestic matter which the courts are prevented from dabbling into as such matters are not justiciable in any court of law as the Senate of a university being the supreme and ultimate academic authority is the only body with the exclusive power to determine who is fit and proper to be awarded a degree. He contended that the Senate did not just arrogate to itself the exclusive power to determine to whom an award of degree should be made as the power is derived from the University of Ilorin Act Cap. U7 Laws of the Federation, 2004.
In the court below the appellant raised the same issue of jurisdiction that is being canvassed here.
Thus what the lower court decided was the release of the results and not the award of the degree to the respondent where this court in applying Section 7 (2) (c) of the University of Ilorin Act Cap. U 7, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, held in Magit vs University of Agric, Makurdi supra at page…
“That insofar as the award of degree or certificate to a student is concerned, the discretion to award or refuse to award, the courts have no jurisdiction in the matter. The courts have no business to flirt into the arena of a university. Any attempt by any court, including this court, to dabble or encroach into the purely administrative and domestic affairs of a university including that of the first respondent that may lead to undue interference, nay, the weakening inadvertently so to speak of the powers and authority of the 1st respondent will not be justiciable or justified.”
Learned counsel for the appellant hinges the appellant’s inability to meet the respondent’s request of releasing her result to the fact that after the respondent had been pardoned and re-absorbed as a student, she had outstanding courses which she missed during the suspension and as a result it was practically impossible to release a non-existent result. The lower court had taken up this issue when it said at page 382 of the record:-
“I have also looked at Exhibits H and HI as against the answers to the interrogatories filed by the learned counsel to the defendant/appellant and the evidence of DW1 – DW5 which confirm the assertion and findings of the learned trial judge at pages 150 – 151, that the appellant and witnesses are insincere, vague, evasive, confusing and contradicting in their statements regarding the real offence or reason why the respondent’s result is not released till date. I agree with my Lord Nnamani J. and I could not have put it better that the appellant ought to be direct, frontal and positive in letting the plaintiff know the case against her (why her result is being withheld), rather than toy with her constitutional right to be informed of the offence or transgression against the law of the defendant after she had apologised and paid the restitution as directed by the Visitor of the University who is superior to the vice chancellor and Council of Senate. See Section 13 of the University of Ilorin Act.”
The stance taken by the appellants as far back as 11/6/2011 in refusing to release the result of the respondent was because there was a pending appeal. This was what the vice chancellor stated in his letter Ref. No. VCO/131.S.I dated 11th June, 2001 which was tendered as Exhibit B.
The appellant in the last paragraph of ‘Exhibit B’ stated that the respondent has not yet met the conditions for the award of a degree of the University of Ilorin and tendered Exhibits H, H1 and H2.
In answer to the interrogatories served on the appellant dated 20th April, 2005 on how many courses are still outstanding against the plaintiff, and what the course titles are the reply was “NONE”. The head of department however remarked that the total credits offered was 151 and the credits passed was 131 and the plaintiff failed course ICH 209 which is a core course hence she could not graduate. In a memo sent on 3/5/2000 by Dr. G. O. Adediran HOD Chemistry to Dr. Ogunniyi who took course ICH 209, he wanted Dr. Ogunniyi to confirm whether Miss Rashidat Adesina (Mat. No. 95/043589) attended lectures prior to the examination in ICH 209; ICH 424, ICH 446 and whether she did the required practical and continuous assignments to which Dr. Ogunniyi replied:
“Miss Adesina attended about 17% of lectures for ICH 209, However, she submitted her continuous assignments. I am unable to give any specific information about her attendance at ICH 424 lectures but I did observe her presence most of the time the lectures were held.”
The reason that led to the non-release of her results is attributed to her failing a core course, ICH 209.
The appellant has the sole power and responsibility to lay down requirements which must be satisfied before any student who is considered in the opinion of the Senate to be worthy in learning and character to an award of its degree. The issue at stake is the release of the results and not the award of the degree. The respondent was entitled to know the outcome of her examinations. It is the practice the world over that where a student sits for an examination or completes a course he or she is entitled to know the outcome of that examination. It therefore beats my imagination why the appellant refused to release the respondent’s result on the flimsy excuse that she failed a core course and so the appellant had no obligation to release a non-existent result. It was an unnecessary show of power for the university to turn a deaf ear to the respondent’s entreaties to release the results.
The answer to the interrogatories shows that course ICH 209 was taken in the 1996/97 academic year and this was before the demonstration in 1998. Was she notified that her score of 36 was a pass or a fail? If she was not notified about her performance in the course, the appellant cannot turn round to blame her for not remedying the deficiency.
I regret to say that the way and manner the appellant handled the issue leaves much to be desired. The resolution of issue 1 is that the court below was not wrong in holding that the trial court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the case.
On issues 2 and 3, there is no doubt that the respondent was allowed to return to the university as a student but the treatment meted out to the respondent after her return has left no one in doubt that the appellant was not happy that the respondent instituted an action in court and from the tone of ‘Exhibit B’, the fate that has befallen the respondent is a fallout from the action. I therefore find that the appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. I make no order on costs.