BEST LAW REPORT SUBSCRIPTION PRICE!!

  • JAMB vs. Wickliffe
  • 251
  • 2005-03-21
  • ₦ 200
  • Buy Now

JAMB vs. Wickliffe

JOINT ADMISSIONS AND MATRICULATION BOARD

V

OMONIYI WICKLIFFE

ADEBIMPE ADESIYAN

OLUFEMI OLAYIWOLA

ADEDAYO ADEMOLA PHILLIPS

MISS OLANIKE ALAWEMO

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN

COURT OF APPEAL

( IBADAN DIVISION )

SAKA A. IBIYEYE JCA (Presided and Read the Lead Judgment)

VICTOR AIMEPOMO OYELEYE OMAGE JCA

OLUFUNLOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE JCA

CA/I/254/2001

TUESDAY, 6TH JULY, 2004

ACTION - Consolidated suits - Nature of

ACTION - Consolidation of suits - Rationale for

CONTRACT - Breach of contract - Damages for mental distress in cases of -  Award of - Propriety of

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Commission of an offence Person alleged to have committed an offence - Rights of

DAMAGES - Award of by trial court - When appellate court will interfere with

DAMAGES - Mental distress in cases of breach of contract - Award of damages for - Propriety of


DAMAGES - Pain and suffering - Award of damages for - Propriety of

EDUCATION - Cancellation of examination results - Power of the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board to cancel examination result

-  How should be exercised

EDUCATION - Institutions of learning - Admission thereto - Need for probity in respect of

EDUCATION - Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board - Power of in respect of admission into tertiary institutions in Nigeria

FAIR HEARING - Commission of an offence - Person alleged to have committed an offence - Rights of

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Consolidated suits - Nature of

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Consolidation of suits - Rationale for

Issues:

1.              Whether the learned trial Judge was wrong in holding against the preponderance of evidence that the appellant was wrong in cancelling the plaintiffs/respondents 1993/94  U.M.E. results and directing or instructing the defendant/respondent to cancel or withdraw the admissions of the plaintiffs/ respondents when they were found to be unqualified for admission after a post release review of results of all candidates who sat for the 93/94 University Matriculation Examination (U.M.E.).

2.              Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the plaintiffs/respondents were not given fair hearing when from the facts and circumstances of this case no allegation of crime was levelled against them and when the appellant is not and did not constitute itself into a tribunal.

3.              Whether from the facts and circumstances of this case the learned trial Judge was right in holding on page 21 paragraph 3  of the judgment that the five plaintiffs have proved on balance of probabilities that they have accepted the offer of provisional admission made to them by the 1st defendant in this case. As a result the plaintiffs were matriculated having registered in various universities of their choice as evidence

by certification of admission by the 2nd defendant.

4.              Whether from the facts and preponderance of evidence given in this case the trial Judge was right in holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for non-pecuniary loss and awarding N500,000.00 general damages after finding that the plaintiffs’ claim for special and general damages was not proved.

Facts:

The respondents and cross-appellants participated in the 1993/94 Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board Examinations into the University of Ibadan. Subsequent to their results being dispatched to them and their being offered admissions into the University and after they had accepted the admission and commenced registration, the appellant wrote vide exhibits 19  and 20 to the University of Ibadan that the offer of admission of the respondents/cross-appellant had been cancelled for reason of their tampering with examination particulars. Consequently, they either received letters or read on the notice board of the University that their admissions had been cancelled. The respondents filed suit No. FHC/IB/CS/22/95 against the appellant and the University of Ibadan, while the cross-appellant filed suit No. FHC/IB/CS/65/94 against the same defendants. The two suits were consolidated and the court further ordered that judgment in the latter suit shall abide by the judgment delivered in the former. The respondents (i.e. plaintiffs in suit No. FHC/IB/CS/22/95 proved their case. The cross-appellant did not call any witnesses in the erroneous belief that the proceedings covered their case especially with the further order of court that judgment in their suit shall abide by judgment in the respondents’ suit. The trial court in its judgment granted the reliefs sought by the respondent and awarded them N500,000.00 (five hundred thousand naira) each for non-pecuniary losses of mental distress they suffered. The claim of the cross-appellants was struck out for want of diligent prosecution.

Aggrieved, the defendants/appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal, while the cross-appellant cross-appealed contending that the judgment of court covers their suit and pursuant to the further order of court on consolidation, it was not necessary for them, to adduce evidence in support of their claims, the facts of the cases being similar.