THE REPUBLIC vs. THE VICE CHANCELLOR KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGY EX-PARTE: NNAMBI NNAKWADORO ENEKWA & 4ORS [2008]DLSC2465

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE VICE CHANCELLOR KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE &TECHNO... [2008]DLSC2465

Date	2008-11-12
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/7/2008
Citation No.	[2008]DLSC2465

BROBBEY J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

OWUSU (MS) J.S.C.

DOTSE J.S.C.

BAFFOE-BONNIE J.S.C.

ANIN YEBOAH J.S.C.

SIR DENNIS ADJEI FOR THE APPELLANTS

KWAKU NTI FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2008]DLSC2465
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE VICE CHANCELLOR
KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE &amp;TECHNOLOGY EX-PARTE: NNAMBI NNAKWADORO
ENEKWA &amp; 4ORS<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT]<o:p></o:p>CIVIL
APPEAL NO. J4/7/2008<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
12TH NOVEMBER, 2008.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>SIR DENNIS ADJEI FOR THE APPELLANTS<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

KWAKU NTI FOR THE
RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;ANIN YEBOAH, J.S.C:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This is an appeal against the decision of the
Court of Appeal dated the 28th February, 2008. The appellants were at the time
material to this action, students of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science
and Technology at Kumasi pursuing various degree courses.<o:p></o:p>On the 25th August, 2006,
the Registrar of the University (the respondent herein) acting on the
instructions of the Vice – Chancellor wrote to each of the appellants
dismissing all of them from the University. The affidavit which supported the
application at the High Court was sworn to by one Jamal Anabio, a law clerk of
the solicitor who initiated the proceedings for Judicial Review. The basis for
the application was that the applicants had on 26th August, 2006 proceeded on
vacation. On 26th August 2006, the Registrar of the University wrote a letter
to each to the appellants herein, dismissing them from the University. The
letter claimed that the appellants were dismissed because their continued stay
or presence in the university poses a great risk to the university
community.&nbsp; The first appellant in response
to the letter of dismissal on 6th September 2006 wrote to the Registrar
insisting on his innocence and demanded reinstatement.&nbsp; The Registrar never replied to the
letter.&nbsp; The parents of the appellants
who naturally felt aggrieved by the dismissals came down from Nigeria and
requested to meet the Vice – Chancellor of the university.&nbsp; They could not meet the Vice –
Chancellor.&nbsp; The solicitor for the
appellants in a letter dated 12th September, 2006 addressed to the Registrar of
the university, demanded an explanation for the dismissal of the students.&nbsp; This letter was also not responded to by way
of reply and on 21st September, 2006, the appellants resorted to the judicial
process by filing an application for Judicial Review at the High Court, Kumasi,
seeking to quash their dismissals by the respondent.&nbsp; The ground for the application was that their
dismissal violated the University regulations and that the dismissals were in
violation of article 25 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana.<o:p></o:p>The respondent
controverted some of the allegations of facts by insisting that a committee was
set up to inquire into a shooting incident which occurred in March of
2006.&nbsp;&nbsp; As part of the investigations,
the Registrar on 4th May, 2006 directed letters to everyone involved in the
incident and requested them to report to the Dean of students.&nbsp; The respondents claim that some of the
students reported but others did not.&nbsp; It
was contended further by the respondents that the appellants were dismissed
pursuant to the report of the committee which was set up to investigate the
allegations which found&nbsp; out that
the&nbsp; students were engaged in occultism
and mafia-style factions which resorted in violence to achieve their ends.<o:p></o:p>The record shows that the
application at the High Court was determined on affidavit evidence.&nbsp; The learned trial judge who determined the
matter ruled against the appellants whose appeal to the Court of Appeal was
also dismissed culminating in this appeal before us.&nbsp; Several exhibits from both parties were
placed before the High Court to assist the court in determining the matter.<o:p></o:p>However, it is interesting
to note that the affidavit of the respondents sworn to by Mr. J.B Oleans Pobee,
the solicitor for the respondent in paragraph 7 thereof states categorically
that the setting up of a committee of inquiry to investigate the
allegations.&nbsp; The affidavit was supported
by the Interim Report on Activities of Nigerian students and subsequent shoot
out at Maxims on 19th April 2006 which is marked as exhibit KNUST “3” dated
29th May, 2006.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>The appellants, both at
the High Court and the Court of Appeal contended, inter alia, that the
respondents failed to comply with its own laid down procedures for dismissing
students.&nbsp;&nbsp; This submission was based on
article 7 of the Students Guide which appears to be the guidelines for
regulating disciplinary proceedings and other matters in the university.&nbsp; For a fuller record Article 7 of the Students
Guide is reproduced as follows:<o:p></o:p>“7. PENALTIES FOR BREACH OF
REGULATIONS<o:p></o:p>A student who is deemed to have
misconducted himself may be liable to one or more of the following penalties.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>(i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; warning<o:p></o:p>(ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Reprimand<o:p></o:p>(iii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Rustication for a stated period <o:p></o:p>(iv)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Suspension from the use of university
services or facilities for a stated period<o:p></o:p>(v)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Payment or making good of or damage to any
property of the university.<o:p></o:p>(vi)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Dismissal from the university.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Clauses III to VI above shall be treated as
major penalties, which shall be imposed only by the Vice-Chancellor.&nbsp; The Vice- Chancellor shall appoint a
</main>