THE REPUBLIC v. UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH AND ALLIED SCIENCES, EX PARTE: ISAAC YEBOAH & ORS
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- N. C. A. Agbevor
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Education Law
- Evidence Law
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The court examined the procedural fairness of disciplinary actions taken against students of the University of Health and Allied Sciences for alleged examination malpractices. The students claimed they were not provided a hearing and that the disciplinary committee was improperly constituted. The court evaluated the relevant regulations and found that the Universitys actions followed proper procedural rules under the applicable examination misconduct regulations. Therefore, the applicants' claims were dismissed, and the sanctions imposed on them were upheld.
JUDGMENT
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). 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.
The facts leading to the instant application are not complex. 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.
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.
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. Certiorari is a discretionary remedy which would issue to correct a clear error of law on the face of the ruling of the Court; or an error which amounts to lack of jurisdiction in the Court so as to make the decision a nullity. See REPUBLIC VRS. HIGH COURT, ACCRA EX-PARTE INDUSTRIALLISATION FUND FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND ANOTHER (2003-4) SCGLR 348.
Certiorari as a common law remedy is primarily directed to control actions of inferior Courts or tribunal's jurisdiction and to bring them in line within their permissible limits in law.
Thus in Halsbury's Law of England (3rd edition) Vol. 11 paragraph 119 it states:
“where the proceedings are regular upon the face and the inferior tribunal had jurisdiction, the Superior Court will not grant the order for certiorari on the ground that the inferior tribunal has misconceived a point of law. When the inferior tribunal has jurisdiction to decide a matter it cannot (mer