CaseLaw
Akimtemi V. Prof. Onwumechili (1985) CLR 1(b) (SC)
Brief
Facts
Three female students of the University of Ife-Olajobi Abimbola Akintemi, Numeh Udobi and Elizabeth Iyamabo (hereafter to be referred to as the appellants) jointly in the High Court of Oyo State (Ibadan Judicial Division) sought the following orders against the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the University of Ife as well as the University itself.
Although the above application was not filed until 28th September, 1981, there had been an earlier application by the appellants against the respondents for an order of certiorari to quash the order of suspension made by 1st respondent against them on the basis of the findings of an enquiry set up by the said 1st respondent to investigate an allegation of malpractices during the Part III LL.B. examinations held in July, 1980. It would appear that in July 1980, one Paul Usoro, the President of the Law Society, University of Ife, wrote to the Dean of the Faculty of Law reporting allegations of widespread examination leakage and malpratices in all classes of the Faculty of Law and particularly in Part III, giving the names of students who would be able to give evidence in relation to these matters. Usoro’s report was eventually referred to the Vice-Chancellor who set up a panel of five, headed by a former Deputy-Vice-Chancellor, Professor Adegbola. The panel’s terms of reference were:
On 22nd January, 1981 a student publication called the “Scorpion” carried a report titled “Investigative Report: Explosive Examination Leakage in Law Faculty” which linked the names of three students (Miss Iyamabo, Miss Udobi and Miss Akintemi) and two lecturers – Dr. L. Aremu and Dr. Fabunmi – with the leakages in Part III. The panel at the end of its work submitted its report. It found sufficient evidence to recommend the eight students, amongst whom were the three appellants, be suspended. They were accordingly suspended for the remainder of that session by a letter worded in identical terms which issued from the Registrar of the University with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor.
The order of certiorari was sought to quash the suspension order. This the court did on the grounds that the rules of natural justice had been breached in that the appellants had merely been called as witnesses during the enquiry by the panel without having had properly formulated charges served on them before the commencement of the enquiry to enable them defend such charges, if need be. The court ordered the University to rescind the order of suspension in respect of each appellant within 7 days. There is an admission by the appellants in affidavit evidence that they had been fully restored to their rights and privileges by the University in consequence of the court order aforesaid.
Thereafter, it would appear that things happened rather quickly. The appellants in their affidavit admitted that they were allowed by the University to sit for the Part IV LL.B, examinations at the end of July 1981 and that they had in fact passed with flying colours. As the complaint which led to the filing of the application for an order of mandamus was the fact that the respondents had failed and/or refused to release the results of the final LL.B examinations one can only speculate on the state of the totality of the papers filed as to how the appellants became possessed of the information that they had passed as well as they had claimed. Put in another way, if the appellants had indeed had their results legitimately released to them by the appropriate organ of the University, the occasion of the mandamus application would not have risen. This seems to be the core of the case.