JESSE CALEB BROWN & 651 ORS. vs METHODIST UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, NATIONAL ACCREDITATION BOARD, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND ATTORNEY GENERAL [2015]DLHC16453

JESSE CALEB BROWN & 651 ORS. vs METHODIST UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, NATIONAL ACCREDITA... [2015]DLHC16453

Date	2015-01-29
Suit No.	SUIT NO. HRCM 353/12
Citation No.	[2015]DLHC16453

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE KOFI ESSEL MENSAH

GARY NIMAKO MARFO

OPOKU AMPONSAH

GRACE EWOAL

[2015]DLHC16453
																																						<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" >&nbsp;&nbsp;JESSE CALEB BROWN &amp; 651 ORS.<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>METHODIST UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, NATIONAL ACCREDITATION BOARD,
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND ATTORNEY GENERAL<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SUIT NO. HRCM 353/12&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE:
29THJANUARY, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>GARY NIMAKO MARFO FOR APPLICANTS.<o:p></o:p>OPOKU AMPONSAH FOR 1ST RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

GRACE EWOAL
FOR 4TH RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;tab-stops:369.0pt;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;The
applicants commenced this action against the respondents to enforce their fundamental
human rights to education as guaranteed by article 25(1) of the 1992
Constitution and other international covenants, i.e. article 26 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 13 and 14 of the
International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights among others. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The
background history of the case is that, the 2nd respondent, a
regulatory body set up by an Act of Parliament to regulate the activities of
tertiary institutions, both public and private in the Country, by a letter
dated 28th May, 2012, which is exhibited as exhibit 19, requested
the 1st respondent institution to withdraw close to 1,500 students
on the grounds that their minimum entry requirement, by which they sought
admission and were admitted into 1st respondent’s institution did
not meet the national approved entry minimum qualification.&nbsp; For some, it was alleged that the
equivalencies of their certificates on the basis of which they gained admission
into 1st respondent's institution were not established and certified
by 2nd respondent as being appropriate for admission into tertiary
institution.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;By
the tone of 2nd respondent’s letter (exhibit 19), 1st respondent had
a choice to either withdraw all the affected students from its institution or
have its accreditation withdrawn. 1st respondent's was also commanded by the
same said letter (exhibit 19), to cease advertising for enrolment and the
admission of fresh students until the directive was complied with and evidence of
the compliance communicated to 2nd respondent.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;A
prudent investor who has invested so heavily in establishing a university would
not want his investment to go waste, as a result, 1st respondent was
compelled to withdraw the affected students as demanded by 2nd
respondent.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The
affected students comprise those who had been admitted into 1st
respondent institution on the basis of their WASSCE/SSSCE results/certificates,
holders of varied certificates like HND, DBS, RSA stages II and III, Post-Secondary
Teacher Training Certificates, Diplomas and Professional Certificates from
recognised professional bodies who are classified as “other Applicants” and
mature students.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The
case against the mature students was dropped when the adverse report made
against them was subsequently found to be untenable. The other category of
students were withdrawn from 1st respondent university.<o:p></o:p>