|
On 10-07-2009, the plaintiff
caused a writ to be issued in
this court whereby she claims
the following reliefs against
the defendant:
“a. A declaration that the
Academic Board’s decision is
void on grounds of breach of
natural justice;
b. An order compelling the
defendant to reinstate her as a
student of the defendant’s
University;
c. General damages for
subjecting the plaintiff to
public ridicule, psychological
trauma, and waste of time;
d. An apology from the defendant
to the plaintiff and published
in the front pages of the
People’s Daily Graphic in three
consecutive editions; and
e. Total cost of litigation.”
The case of the plaintiff is
that she was admitted into the
defendant’s university in
August, 2005, to pursue Bachelor
of Arts course. In April, 2006,
during the second semester
examination, when she walked
into the Arabic paper 112
Examination Hall or centre, she
did not find a desk with her
name and index number on it and
so she informed the invigilator,
one Dr. Gemegah then with the
Business School, who asked her
to just occupy any empty desk at
the back roll in the hall which
she did. With about 30 minutes
to the end of the paper, she
witnessed a spectacle of
confrontation between the
invigilator and a male student
occupying the next desk in front
of her. The invigilator
repeatedly questioned him where
he came by an extra examination
question paper on him and he
repeatedly answered that he
picked it from the floor. The
invigilator, on suspicion, then
asked her (the plaintiff) to
come out from the examination
hall with the other student to
make a statement on paper of
which she did by stating that
she did not have any idea about
the said extra examination
question paper and that even the
writings on the said paper were
not hers. Notwithstanding her
protest, she was not made to
finish the paper.
It is, further, the plaintiff’s
case that somewhere during the
2006/2007 academic year, she was
informed by her brother that a
certain John Kojo Kromoah at the
Faculty of Arts of the defendant
university had called wanting to
see her and she went and saw him
and the latter handed over to
her a letter entitled “INQUIRY
INTO EXAMINATION MALPRACTICES IN
SECOND SEMESTER EXAMINATION-
2005/2006.”
The said letter requested her to
appear before a Committee of
Inquiry of which the said John
Kojo Kromoah had signed as the
secretary to the said committee.
On 23-10-2006, the plaintiff
appeared before the committee
and she was asked to go and look
for the other student who was
sitting in front of her during
the Arabic Paper 112
examination, for without him
they could not deal with her
case as it bothered on collusion
in examination hall. She pleaded
with the committee to get her
that student’s name and
whereabouts to assist her in
locating him as she did not know
him except when they were called
to make statements on that day.
The committee, however,
repeatedly told her that she
knows that student so she should
go and bring him in a week’s
time.
The plaintiff states, further,
that she combed the defendant’s
university in vain for the said
student and returned to the
committee on 30-10-2006 and
informed them and they all
laughed over and over again and
proceeded to ask her so many
questions simultaneously without
giving her any chance at all to
answer any of the questions and
no amount of plea could move
them to exercise restraint, as
if she was a common criminal. In
the process, the invigilator
appeared before the committee
and when he was asked whether or
not he saw the said male student
communicating with the plaintiff
in the examination hall, he
answered in the negative. There
and then the committee asked her
to leave and that she would hear
from them.
The plaintiff says she never
heard anything from the
committee but on 07-05-2007 when
she was writing the Political
Science Paper 204, the
invigilator seized her student
identification card and gave it
back to her after the paper,
after he had made a number of
calls to an unknown source. When
she returned to her hall of
residence, friends and
colleagues then brought to her
attention her expulsion from the
defendant university which was
conspicuously published in page
40 of the People’s Daily
Graphic, Monday, May 7, 2007,
edition.
The trauma, the public ridicule
and the confusion which resulted
from the publication forced her
to abandon the remaining three
papers, namely, Political
Science, History 204 and
Psychology 202 that she was to
write and went home.
Subsequently, upon advices from
friends and colleagues, she
wrote to the Director of
Academic Affairs of the
defendant university on
23-07-2007 to confirm her
dismissal or otherwise. By
letter of 24-07-2007, the
Director of Academic Affairs
replied confirming her dismissal
by the Academic Board of the
university in a letter dated
26-03-2007 and signed for on
behalf of the registrar of the
university by one Mrs. Emelia
Agyei-Mensah, a copy of which
was attached to the reply. The
dismissal letter was copied to
registrars of all public
universities in Ghana, making it
impossible for her to attend any
other public university as long
as this stigma stands against
her.
From these facts, the plaintiff
contends that she was entitled
to be heard and that what took
place before the Committee of
Inquiry on 23rd and
30th October, 2007,
was no hearing at all but
humiliation which was an affront
to her right as a human being.
The plaintiff also contends that
there was no offence called “COLLUSION
IN EXAMINATION HALL” in the
university regulations or
statute and, even if there was,
no such offence had been
established against her by the
said Committee of Inquiry and
thus the decision of the
Academic Board had no legs to
stand on.
The plaintiff contends, further,
that she was entitled to have
had notice of the decision that
the committee came to (sanctions
that were imposed on her) and
the report it had to issue to
the Academic Board for her to
exercise her right of appeal to
the Vice Chancellor within one
week after the said decision of
which notice and report the
committee failed to grant her,
thereby blocking her right to
appeal and thereby rendering her
future hopeless.
Finally, the plaintiff contends
that the Academic Board had no
authority to issue out sanctions
that permanently or temporarily
expel a student from the
university without the
concurrence of the Vice
Chancellor and thus the Academic
Board acted in excess of its
authority and or powers.
The plaintiff, therefore, claims
the reliefs stated above.
The case of the defendant is
that Dr. Gemegah confronted the
male student sitting in front of
the plaintiff about the extra
examination question paper on
him in the middle of the
examination and not thirty
minutes to the end of the paper.
Dr. Gemegah made the plaintiff
give her statement and then
completed her examination and
gave her answer booklet to one
of the invigilators before the
end of the examinations, for any
student caught engaging in any
form of examination malpractice
is permitted to complete the
examination.
The defendant admits that the
plaintiff was invited to appear
before a Committee of Inquiry
but she was asked various
questions and she provided
answers to them. The defendant
admits that Dr. Gemegah, the
invigilator, appeared before the
committee and said he did not
see the plaintiff communicating
with the said male student.
The defendant states that the
plaintiff was notified of the
defendant’s decision to expel
her on 26-03-2007.
The defendant, again, admits
that there was a publication of
the plaintiff’s expulsion on the
7th May, 2007,
edition of the People’s Daily
Graphic. Once the plaintiff was
expelled she was not permitted
to write any further
examinations.
The defendant, further, admits
that the plaintiff wrote to it
seeking confirmation or
otherwise of her expulsion and
it replied the plaintiff
confirming her expulsion from
the university in the letter
dated 26-03-2007. It also admits
copying the expulsion letter to
other public universities and
states that that is the normal
practice and such a practice is
not meant to stigmatize, any
student including the plaintiff.
The defendant, therefore,
contends that the plaintiff was
given a fair hearing in relation
to the examination malpractice
which occurred in April, 2006.
The defendant, again, contends
that any form of communication
in the examination hall is
considered as an examination
offence under the defendant’s
regulations and that collusion
in the examination hall falls
within this category. The
defendant’s regulations provide
that no student is to copy
another student’s work or engage
in any similar activity and that
the plaintiff breached the said
regulations.
The defendant denies that the
plaintiff was entitled to have
had notice of the decision that
the committee came to and states
that by it’s regulations, the
recommendations of the committee
is sent to the Academic Board
for review and that the
plaintiff was duly notified of
the Academic Board’s decision on
26-03-2007.
The defendant denies the
plaintiff assertion that the
Academic Board had no authority
to issue out sanctions that
expel a student from the
university without the
concurrence of the Vice
Chancellor and states that it is
the Vice Chancellor who chairs
the Academic Board and that the
decision of the Academic Board
to expel the plaintiff was made
with the consent of the Vice
Chancellor.
The defendant, therefore, says
that the plaintiff is not
entitled to the reliefs she
seeks by his writ of summons.
At the application for
directions the following issues
were set down for trial.
“i. Whether or not the offence
of collusion in examination hall
(if any) was established against
the plaintiff to merit her
expulsion from the defendant
university.
ii. Whether or not plaintiff was
given fair hearing.
iii. Whether or not plaintiff
was notified of her expulsion by
defendant on 26-03-2007.
iv. Whether or not the Vice
Chancellor of the defendant
university authorized the
permanent removal of the
plaintiff from the defendant
university.
v. Whether or not plaintiff was
permitted to write April-May
2007 examination in the
defendant university.
vi. Whether or not the plaintiff
is entitled to the reliefs
claimed.
vii. Any other issue arising
from the pleadings.”
I propose to determine this case
by taking the issues in the
order in which they appear
above.
i.
Whether or not the offence of
collusion in examination hall
(if any) was established against
the plaintiff to merit her
expulsion from the defendant
university.
The plaintiff was expelled from
the defendant university for
violating Regulation 10.8 of the
regulations governing
examinations in the university.
The said regulation which is
contained in page 44 of the
Handbook for the Bachelor’s
Degree (Humanities): 2005-2007
(Exhibit G) states as follows:
“10.8 No communication between
candidates is permitted in the
examination hall.
i.
A candidate shall not pass or
attempt to pass any information
or instrument from one to
another during an examination;
ii.
A candidate shall not copy or
attempt to copy from another
candidate or engage in any
similar activity.
iii.
A candidate shall not disturb or
distract any other candidate
during an examination.
iv.
Candidates may attract the
attention of the Invigilator by
raising their hands”
The punishment for breaching the
above regulation is stated in
Regulation 10.16 (page 45 of
Exhibit G) as
“… a grade Z leading to failure
in University Examination, shall
be awarded wherever it is
established that candidates had
attempted to gain an unfair
advantage in an examination be
it in a Principal subject or an
Ancillary or any other paper.
Further sanctions may include:
i.
being barred from a University
Examination for a stated period;
ii.
being barred from a University
Examination indefinitely;
iii.
suspension from the University;
iv.
expulsion from the University.”
Thus, in the plaintiff’s
expulsion letter, dated
26-05-2007, Exhibit F, it was
clearly stated that
“In accordance with Section
10.16 iv of the regulations
governing University
Examinations, I write to convey
to you the decision of the
Academic Board of the University
to expel you from the University
with effect from the Second
Semester of the 2006-2007
academic year. This is on
account of your involvement in
examination malpractice during
the Paper ARAB 112:
Elementary Arabic II in
the Second Semester of the
2005-2006 academic year, in
violation of Section 10.8 of the
regulations.
In addition, you are awarded
Grade Z for the Second Semester
2005-2006 examinations.”
As it is explicit in Exhibit F,
the plaintiff was expelled for
her “involvement in
examination malpractice during
the Paper ARAB 112: Elementary
Arabic II in the Second Semester
of the 2005-2006 academic year,
in violation of Section 10.8 of
the regulations.”
At page 46 of Exhibit G,
examination malpractice or
offence is described as follows:
“EXAMINATION
MALPRACTICE OR OFFENCE
1.
Examination offences shall be
understood to include any
attempt on the part of a
candidate to gain an unfair
advantage, and any breach of the
Examination Regulations and
Instructions to candidates
including … any form of
communication with another
candidate …”
The above definition of
examination malpractice read
together with Regulation 10.8,
supra, clearly shows that
communication between candidates
in an examination hall is
prohibited for it constitutes an
examination malpractice.
So, the question is whether the
plaintiff communicated with the
student in front of him when
they were writing the paper?
The plaintiff denies
communicating with the other
student and says this was even
confirmed by the invigilator,
Dr. Albert Gemegah (D.W.2), when
he appeared before the committee
of inquiry. D.W.2, in his
evidence in court, was asked, in
cross-examination, whether he
told the committee that he did
not see the plaintiff and the
other candidate picking the
paper from the floor (that is
the male student who was sitting
in front of the plaintiff in the
examination hall) and he
answered in the affirmative and
explained that he understood the
question to mean whether he saw
them talking with each other or
even signaling each other but he
didn’t see anything like that.
As rightly submitted by defence
counsel, communication could be
non-verbal as the plaintiff did
not need to talk to the other
candidate. It could be done in
other ways, for instance, giving
out documents to the other. As
stated in Regulation 10.8 of
Exhibit G, the passing of any
information or instrument from
one to another, copying from
another candidate or engaging in
any similar activity are all
forms of communication.
In the instant case, there is
ample and credible evidence that
the plaintiff’s examination
paper found its way on the
floor. The other candidate
picked it and was reading
through same. When D.W.2
confronted him and collected it,
it contained answers for the
translation from Arabic into
English as part of section A of
the question paper (Exhibit 1).
That is not all the plaintiff’s
answer sheet (Exhibit 2) in
which he answered the same
question at page 3, the answers
are a verbatim reproduction of
the answers in Exhibit 1.
The most probable inference is
that one of the two candidates
answered the said question and
gave to the other to copy. And
if the plaintiff’s statement to
the chief invigilator (Exhibit
3) is anything to go by, it
would mean that the other
student answered the said
question for her to copy and
probably pushed it down for him
to answer another question for
her to copy.
The plaintiff, in Exhibit 3,
stated as follows:
“… My paper fell down and he
took it. There was nothing in my
question paper and the hand
writing on the paper too is not
my hand writing when you compare
it to my answer paper.”
So, if the hand writing on the
question paper is not hers, the
most likely author of that
writing would be the other
candidate. The plaintiff, after
copying the answers provided,
gave it back to him to answer
more questions for her to copy
but unfortunately D.W.2 saw the
other candidate picking the
question paper and spoilt the
party. The plaintiff cannot be
stating the truth when she
averred in paragraph 7 of her
statement of claim that in the
statement she gave to the chief
invigilator she stated that she
did not have any idea about the
said extra examination question
paper.
The plaintiff termed the offence
for which she was expelled as
“collusion in examination hall.”
As plaintiff counsel
inferentially admits in his
submission, it is the same as
breaching any of the provision
on examination malpractice
referred to above and as pointed
out by the definition of
collusion in the Chambers
English Dictionary published in
1990 by W&R Chambers Ltd as “a
secret agreement to deceive”.
The plaintiff, most probably,
copied the answers to the
question in issue that were
provided by another student to
deceive the defendant
university.
Counsel for the plaintiff, also,
submitted that there was no
report submitted to the Academic
Board by the Committee of
Inquiry of which report could
have established the offence of
collusion in examination hall
against the plaintiff and cited
the case of ENEKWA &OTHERS
v. KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY (KNUST)
[2009] SCGLR 242.
With respect to counsel, the
facts of that case are
distinguishable from this one in
that there is ample evidence
from both parties that a
Committee of Inquiry sat in
which the plaintiff was invited.
After the committee sitting, a
report was submitted to the
Academic Board and the latter at
its meeting on 23-03-2007, duly
chaired by the Vice-Chancellor,
Professor C.N.B. Tagoe, a
decision was taken that the
plaintiff be awarded grade Z for
the second semester 2005-2006
examinations and expelled from
the defendant university with
effect from the second semester
of the 2005-2006 academic year.
From the above, it is clear that
the expulsion of the plaintiff
was in accordance with the
defendant university regulations
after the plaintiff breached the
examination regulations of the
university specifically
Regulations 10.8
ii.
Whether or not plaintiff was
given fair hearing.
There is undisputable facts that
the plaintiff appeared before
the committee of enquiry on
23-10-2006 and on 30-10-2006.
However, it is the case of the
plaintiff that she was not given
any hearing on both dates.
According to her, the first day
she was asked to go and bring
the male candidate who picked
her question paper from the
floor. She protested that she
could not trace him as she did
not know his whereabouts yet the
committee asked her to go and
bring him. She went and looked
for him in vain and returned on
30-10-2006.
On 30-10-2006, the committee did
not allow her to testify for the
members asked her questions
simultaneously and would not
listen to her answers.
The defendants through Mr. John
Kojo Kromoah (D.W.3), the
secretary to the committee,
testified to the contrary that
the plaintiff testified as to
what happened on the examination
day and was asked questions by
the committee members. According
to D.W.3, the plaintiff
contradicted herself severally
in her evidence.
D.W.2, Dr. Gemegah, also
testified that, when he gave
evidence before the committee,
the members of the committee
asked the plaintiff to ask him
questions but the plaintiff only
repeated what she said had
happened in the examination
hall.
I have no reason to doubt the
credibility of D.W.2 and D.W.3
and the plaintiff has not shown
why D.W.2 and D.W.3 would give
false testimony against her in
court that she was given a
hearing when indeed she was not
heard.
On the contrary, I do not find
the plaintiff a credible witness
upon examining the totality of
her evidence about what happened
in the examination hall, her
statement to the chief
invigilator and her evidence on
what transpired at the committee
hearing.
Accordingly, I find as a fact
that the committee complied with
the audi alteram partem rule of
natural justice and gave the
plaintiff a hearing.
iii.
Whether or not plaintiff was
notified of her expulsion by
defendant on 26th
March, 2007.
The expulsion letter was written
on the 26th March,
2007, and, according to the
defendant, it was posted to the
plaintiff address, that is, Ruth
Darko, P. O. Box GP 3245, Accra.
So, the defendant, in the
ordinary circumstances, cannot
be heard to say that it posted
the letter the same day and the
plaintiff received it the same
day. It is simply impossible.
Furthermore, as to whether the
plaintiff subsequently received
the letter is also a fact one
cannot be precisely sure of. The
defendant has not provided any
independent evidence in the
light of a denial by the
plaintiff to substantiate their
evidence that the plaintiff
received the said letter. So, if
the plaintiff says she got to
know of her expulsion on the 7th
May, 2007, through the
publication in the People’s
Daily Graphic, it cannot be
seriously said that she is being
untruthful on this. I do not
think the postal rule in the law
of contract is applicable in
this case.
iv.
Whether or not the Vice
Chancellor of the defendant
university authorized the
permanent removal of the
plaintiff from the defendant
university.
The Vice-Chancellor, by section
18(1) of the Statutes of the
defendant university (Exhibit 3)
is a member of the academic
board and chairs it. The
evidence in this case clearly
shows that the academic board
held a meeting on 23-03-2007
which was chaired by the Vice
Chancellor (Exhibit 4). It was
this meeting that took a
decision to expel the plaintiff.
The plaintiff cannot, therefore,
claim that the Vice-Chancellor
did not authorize her expulsion.
The Vice-Chancellor, as a member
or chairman of the Academic
Board, is a party to the
decision to expel the plaintiff
on 23-03-2007. He, by this
decision, authorized the
expulsion.
v.
Whether or not the plaintiff was
permitted to write April-May
2007 examination in the
defendant university.
By Regulation 10.2 of Exhibit G,
a candidate for an examination
has to submit his/her
registration form duly endorsed
by the head(s) of department to
the Deputy Registrar (Academic
Affairs) not later than six
weeks after the commencement of
the semester. If a candidate
fails to do so he/she shall not
be admitted to a University
examination as stated in
Regulation 10.3 (i) of Exhibit
G.
In the instant case, therefore,
the plaintiff would have
registered for the second
semester exams as she was
required to do since she had
then not been expelled by the
defendant university. At the
time of her expulsion, she had
then registered to write the
said examinations and was
entitled to write same if she
had not been dismissed from the
University (see Regulation 10.3
of Exhibit G). But, as the
evidence shows, the plaintiff
was dismissed before the
examination for the second
semester took off. The
plaintiff, as I have already
found, was not aware of this
fact. The agents or servants of
the university who conducted the
said examination might not also
be aware of this fact so they
permitted the plaintiff to start
the said examination.
So, the defendant did not
intentionally permit the
plaintiff to write the
April-May, 2007, examination. It
was caused by lack of timely
information on the plaintiff’s
status at the time to both the
plaintiff and the defendant’s
agents or servants at the start
of the said examination.
vi.
Whether or not the plaintiff is
entitled to the reliefs claimed.
The evidence in this case shows
that the plaintiff was suspected
to have involved herself in
examination malpractice in the
second semester examination of
the 2005-2006 academic year. She
was charged, duly tried and
found liable and expelled from
the defendant university with
effect from the second semester
of the 2006-2007 academic year.
The plaintiff is, therefore, not
entitled to any of the reliefs
she seeks from this court. The
plaintiff’s action lacks merit
and the same is hereby
dismissed.
COUNSEL:
1. Mr. Dennis Ofosu-Appiah for
Plaintiff.
2. Mrs. Gloria Kwofie holding
Mr. Ace Annan Ankomah’s brief
for the Defendant.
(SGD.) UUTER PAUL DERY
JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT.
|
