University

• Pages: 205-242

205

UNIVERSITY.

(83) ABIA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW.

Purport of section 36 of University of Abia Law.

“I agree with the lead judgment as well as the Court below that the provision of section 36 of the

University of Abia Law is clear and unambiguous. A holistic reading of sub- section (1) and (2)

of section 36 would give us the following picture. A plaintiff intending to sue the university or any

of its bodies, member, officer, employee etc. must commence such an action within three months

of the “occurrence of the act, neglect or default or in the case of damage or (a)injury within 3

(three) months immediately after the cessation thereof. Such a suit must not be commenced until

one month at (b) least after a notice of intention to sue has been served. The date of the

commencement of the suit or proceedings shall be, the date when the pre-action (c) notice to sue

is served on the university. By the provision of section 36 of the University of Abia Law, the legal

draftsman has one hand provided for a three-month limitation period within which an action could

be brought against the university or any of its members. This is comparable to other Limitation

Laws such as the Public Officer Protection Laws applicable in various states of Nigeria. In

addition, as it is again the case with many of our corporations and government agencies, section

36 (1) of the law enjoins the plaintiff to give a notice of intention to sue at least one month before

the commencement of the action.” – Per Owoade, J.C.A., in A.B.S.U. v. Otosi Suit No.

CA/PH/82/2008; (2011) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1229) 605 at 627 - 628.

(84) ACTION AGAINST UNIVERSITY.

Condition precedent to instituting an action against the Olabisi Onabanjo University.

“Section 45 (1), (2) and (3) of the Olabisi Onabanjo University (O.O.U.) Statute, which has been

reproduced in the lead judgment requires any question arising from the appointment, election,

selection, nomination or co-option of any person, etc to first be referred for determination to the

visitor on appeal, before such person may resort to the Courts for the resolution of such disputes.

The response of the appellant is that he gave a pre-action notice. Clearly, what section 45 of the

Olabisi Onabanjo University (O.O.U.) Statute requires is not the issuance of a pre-action notice,

which is merely a notice to the respondents that the appellant intends to submit the dispute to the

jurisdiction of the Courts after the time stipulated in the Law requiring such notice, expires. What

section 45 of the Statute requires is submission by the aggrieved party of his grievance to the

University Visitor.” – Per Tsammani, J.C.A., in Osilesi v. Pro-Chancellor & Chairman, Council

of O.O.U. Suit No. CA/I/265/2010; (2015) 16 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1485) 286 at 309.

Venue for institution of action against a university.

“In order to determine the venue in which an action can be brought against the University of

Calabar in respect of this contract, consideration must be given to where the contract was made,

or was performed or to be performed, or where the said University resides. The venue will be

decided upon either of those alternatives as already established by the authorities of this Court:

see University Press Ltd. v. I.K. Martins (Nig.) Ltd. (2000) 4 N.W.L.R (Pt. 654) 584 at 598-599;

603; Okafor v. Ezenwa (2002) 13 N.W.L.R (Pt. 784) 319 at 335 - 336.” – Per Katsina-Alu, J.S.C.,

in Kraus Thompson Org. Ltd. v. Unical Suit No. S.C. 127/2000; (2004) 9 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 879) 631

at 661.

206

(85) ADMISSION INTO NIGERIAN UNIVERSITIES.

Effect of acceptance of offer of admission by candidates.

“In issue 2, the offer of admission by the appellant on specified terms and the acceptance of the

said offer by the respondents on the said terms created a binding contract between the appellant

and the respondents. See Temporary Letters of Admission - 1999 - 2000 Admissions from pages

17 - 25 of the records and the conditions specified on each letter of admission. In Ogunmadeji &

Ors .v. Moshood Abiola Polytechnic (2001) 1 C.H.R 372 at 372 the plaintiffs gained admission to

study Mass Communication, having satisfied the advertised entry requirements. The entry

requirements were later reviewed upwards before the students could register and the institution

refused to register the students who did not possess the new entry qualification.” – Per Ngwuta,

J.C.A., in Unical v. Ugochukwu (No.1) (No.2) Suit No. CA/C/30A/2005; (2007) 17 N.W.L.R. (Pt.

1063) 248 at 267.

Effect of letter of provisional admission by Joint Admission and Matriculation Board.

“The effect of a letter of provisional admission issued by JAMB to candidates who have taken

U.M.E. like the 1st – 16th plaintiffs/respondents is that if JAMB discovers at any time that a

candidate does not possess any of the required qualifications, the Board has the undoubted power

to require such a candidate to withdraw from the University. Refer to Onagoruwa v. JAMB

(supra).” – Per Fabiyi, J.C.A., in JAMB v. Orji Suit No. CA/I/255/2001; (2008) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt.

1072) 552 at 568.

Meaning of “screen” in admission process in university.

“The word “screen” in this content means, “to subject (candidates) to exhaustive test in order to

be satisfied as to reliability, capability etc.” – Per Ngwuta, J.C.A., in Unical v. Ugochukwu (No.1)

(No.2) Suit No. CA/C/30A/2005; (2007) 17 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1063) 248 at 263.

Power of Joint Admission and Matriculation Board in respect of admission into Nigerian

Universities.

“By section 5 of the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board Act, Cap. 193, Laws of the

Federation, 1990. The Joint Admission and Matriculation Board [JAMB] has the power of

placement of suitable and qualified candidates in Nigerian Universities in collaboration with the

institutions concerned. See Onagoruwa v. J.A.M.B. (2001) 10 N.W.L.R (Pt. 722) 742. There is no

section of that law which empowers any Court to take over that function. So when the learned trial

Judge, maybe out of sympathy for the 1st – 16th respondents, decided that they should sit for

W.A.E.C or G.C.E examinations within two years in order to obtain credit in English Literature or

take a remedial course in Latin, he was swimming in an unfamiliar terrain . The lower Court had

no business in altering or adding to the admission policy of the 4th defendant/appellant as it were,

Moreso, as the appellant was not shown to be discriminatory against the 1st – 16th respondents.”

– Per Okoro, J.C.A., in JAMB v. Orji Suit No. CA/I/255/2001; (2008) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1072) 552

at 574.

Procedure of “screening” candidates in admission process in university.

“See The New Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, International Edition, page 898.

Screening or re-screening cannot be a unilateral activity. It involves active participation of the one

doing the screening and the one being screened. In this regard, it is a contradiction in terms to say

that the respondents were not heard or given the opportunity to be heard before they were expelled

207

based on the finding of the screening panel. They could not have been screened or re-screened in

their absence or without being heard or given opportunity to be heard.” – Per Ngwuta, J.C.A., in

Unical v. Ugochukwu (No.1) (No.2) Suit No. CA/C/30A/2005; (2007) 17 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1063) 248

at 263 - 264.

(86) AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY (APPOINTMENT OF SOLE ADMINISTRATOR

DECREE).

Powers and duties of sole administrator under the Ahmadu Bello University (Appointment

of Sole Administrator) Decree.

“Section 2 of the Decree supplanted the officers, council, the senate, the faculties as well as vice-

chancellor with a Sole Administrator. The section provides as follows – “2. The Sole

Admininstrator shall - (a) be the Chief Executive of the university; (b) perform the duties of -

(i) the officers, (ii) the council, (iii) the senate, (iv) the faculties; and (c) perform such other

functions as the Head of State, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces may, from time to time,

deem fit in the circumstances. It is my respectful opinion that, in the circumstance, there can be no

joint committee of senate and council to be constituted to consider her matter and submit a report

to council because all the democratic organs of the university have been suspended and their

functions vested in one person called Sole Administrator. Learned counsel has not, in my

respectful opinion, shown that he was in the commanding height of this case otherwise he would

not reduce the argument from sublime to ridiculous. He was yet to demonstrate to the Court how

there could be a joint committee of senate and council in the circumstance.” – Per Salami, J.C.A.,

in Abu v. Molokwu Suit No. CA/K/106/99; (2003) 9 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 825) 265 at 288.

(87) AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) ACT.

Can section 3(f) of the regulations made pursuant to the Ahmadu Bello University

(Transitional Provisions) Act be inconsistent with provisions of statute 8.5 of the Act?

(1) “As for the second limb of the question in posed in issue No. 2, whether section 3(f) (iii) of

Exhibit 9 is contrary to and in consistent with the provisions of Statute 8.5 of the Ahmadu Bello

University (Transitional Provisions) Act, I think it right to state that since Statutes 8.4 and 8.5 did

not make provision for determination of a senior staff’s employment within the first three years

that his employment is unconfirmed, recourse ought to be had to the terms of employment of the

senior staff as clearly articulated in Statute 8.5. The terms of appointment of the appellant, i.e.,

Exhibit 1, at paragraph 6, expressly and clearly stated the applicability of section 3 of the

regulations, i.e., Exhibit 9, to the termination of the appellant’s employment. Section 3(f) (iii)

relates to determination of the appellant’s appointment within the period generally known as the

“probationary period”, although in this case, it is known as an “unconfirmed tenure”. Section 3 (f)

(iii), to my mind, complements the provisions of Statute 8.5 of the Act. It is clear in the evidence

proffered by the appellant at the trial that he was still within the period of the first three years in

office when Exhibit 8 was issued to him.”– Per Orji-Abadua, J.C.A., in Alhassan v. A.B.U., Zaria

Suit No. CA/K/437/2004; (2011) 11 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1259) 417 at 463.

(2) “Section 3(f)(iii) is very clear as to what it dictates, that the unconfirmed employment of the

appellant may be terminated by the vice-chancellor by giving the requisite notice for sufficient

cause or payment in lieu of notice. In the light of the aforementioned, I hereby hold that section