THE REPUBLIC vs. UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH AND ALLIED SCIENCES, HO; EX PARTE ISAAC YEBOAH AND 6 OTHERS [2018]DLHC4085

THE REPUBLIC vs. UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH AND ALLIED SCIENCES, HO; EX PARTE ISAAC YE... [2018]DLHC4085

Date	2018-06-04
Suit No.	SUIT NO. E10/6/2018
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC4085

(SGD) N. C. A. AGBEVOR JUSTICE OF THE APPEAL COURT

MR. AGBAKPE FOR APPLICANTS

MR. ERNEST GAEWU FOR RESPONDENTS.

[2018]DLHC4085
																																						<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>UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH AND
ALLIED SCIENCES, HO; EX PARTE ISAAC YEBOAH AND 6 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, HO]<o:p></o:p>SUIT
NO. E10/6/2018&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; &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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;4TH JUNE, 2018<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR.
AGBAKPE FOR APPLICANTS <o:p></o:p>MR.
ERNEST GAEWU FOR RESPONDENTS. <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>(SGD)
N. C. A. AGBEVOR JUSTICE OF THE APPEAL
COURT <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

</div>JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

</div>This
judgement is in respect of a motion on notice for judicial review in the nature
of certiorari under Order 55 of High Court Rules 2004 (C. I. 47). <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Applicants herein claim that their expulsion and suspension from the University
of Health and Allied Sciences breached their legal rights and should be set
aside by this Court. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
facts leading to the instant application are not complex. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Applicants as students of the University of Health and Allied Sciences are
alleged to have had prior knowledge of the second semester examination in SCPH
324 HEALTH MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM taught by MR. YAKUBU A. YAKUBU the
Acting Head of Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics through his
relationship with the 5th Applicant Ms. Perfect Asamoah. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It
is alleged that the 5th Applicant forwarded these questions to other
colleagues. The Respondent University proceeded to institute a committee which
is said to have conducted investigations into the allegation leading to
the dismissal of Applicants without giving them a hearing. This approach to
their dismissals Applicants claim violates the disciplinary rules of the
institution particularly the provision of ARTICLE
9.16(2)f of the RULES AND REGULATIONS
OF THE RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It
is the defence of the Respondents that the Applicants were dealt with under the
provision of REGULATION 10.25 to 10.25.4 of the Handbook 2016/17 and that the
Institution complied with the rules of the Institution. The law governing the
grant of an order of certiorari is certain in the decisions by the superior
Courts. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</</main>