FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY MINNA, NIGER STATE & ORS v. OLUTAYO

The results of the said First Semester Examination were later released and pasted at the Notice Board. The result posted showed, clearly, that the respondent got 37 marks for Chem.III. That result was later withdrawn from the Notice Board, and replaced with another result which showed and suggested that she was absent and did not write Chem.III examination. The respondent protested. Her complaints at the Department fell on deaf ears. She persisted. The next thing she got was a letter inviting her to appear before the Students Disciplinary Committee (SDC) for alleged examination misconduct in respect of the same Chem.III. The letter is dated 20th October, 2005. Before then a letter dated 6th October, 2005 had placed her on suspension and informed her, that her case had been referred to the Students Disciplinary Committee for further investigation and that she would remain on suspension until the final determination of her case. She was thereby advised to keep-off the campus.
The respondent appeared at the SDC hearing. She was duly informed and given the particulars of the allegation against her. That is: that she did not submit her answer booklet after Chem.III examination, and that the answer booklet was found in the School Examinations officers office after 6.00p.m. on the day of the examination, that is 5th May, 2004. The SDC, in their Report, dismissed the allegation and recommended that the respondent be recalled to continue her studies, having already lost one session.
Notwithstanding the finding and report of the SDC that the allegation of examination malpractice against the respondent was not established, the University, the 1st appellant, went ahead to issue, on 22nd December, 2005, a letter expelling the respondent from the University. The letter, Exhibit E. states inter alia:
Senate, at its 28th meeting held on 30th November, 2005, considered and upheld the recommendation of the Students Disciplinary Committee that you be expelled from the University after you were found guilty of examination misconduct during the First Semester of 2003/2004 Session.
The Senate of the University, as it appears, may have purportedly acted under Section 7(2)(b) of the Federal Universities of Technology Act, Cap F23, 2004 LFN in the matter of the expulsion of the respondent. The function of the Senate of the University, under Section 7(2)(b) of the Act, includes the organization and control of – examinations held in conjunction with the students course of study at the University. Function and duty are usually co-related. The duty to act fairly in the discharge of this statutory function of the Senate cannot be denied. I think it is for this reason that Section 7(6) of the Act provides a right of appeal to the council of the University against the decision of the Senate.
A student expelled, pursuant to the directive of the Vice-Chancellor of the University for examination misconduct under Section 17(1) of the Federal Universities of Technology Act (FUTA), 2004, also has a right of appeal to the council of the university by virtue of Section 17(2) of the same FUTA.
It appears to me that the respondent was exercising the rights of appeal she had, by dint of Sections 7(6) and 17(2) of the FUTA, when she addressed her appeal to the Vice-Chancellor vide her letter dated 14th February, 2006, Exhibit F. In this letter of appeal, the respondent asked for the reconsideration of her expulsion and reiterated the fact that she was called upon to face the panel (that is the SDC), on the allegation of examination misconduct and that at the time she left the SDC and upon the SDC findings and report there was no evidence, and no evidence established, that she committed the alleged examination misconduct. Accordingly, the expulsion, conveyed by Exhibit E, was an embarrassment to her. Protesting her innocence of the allegation of examination misconduct, she pleaded, in Exhibit F, that her expulsion be reconsidered to save her the countless loss caused by the expulsion.
The respondent heard nothing in response to her appeal, contained in Exhibit F. On the 14th April, 2006 she approached the High Court of Niger State for enforcement of her right to fair hearing, a fundamental right guaranteed by Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution and enforceable under Section 46(1) of the said Constitution, and the Fundamental Rights

…………………….B…………………….