"The bases of the decision of the lower Court, the subject to this appeal, are that the appellants by not joining issues with the averments of the respondents, contained in paragraphs 12, 13 and 15 of the supporting affidavit, that she signed-in to write Chem.III examination, wrote the examination and that she submitted her answer booklet after writing Chem.III and thereafter signed-out of the examination hall, and further that the SDC, after hearing her on the allegation of examination misconduct, absolved her as there was no evidence establishing the allegation.

The lower Court further found, as a fact, that the Senate of the University did not give the respondent an opportunity to be heard before purporting to find her guilty of examination misconduct, and expelling her on the same allegation she had, previously on the facts, been exonerated and acquitted of. The lower Court, relying on GARBA V. UNIVERSITY OF MAIDUGURI (supra) and ADIGUN & ORS. v. A.G. OYO STATE & ORS. (1987) 2 SC 250 at 375, had correctly, in my view, found that the respondent was not given fair hearing.

The principles of natural justice, as held by the lower Court, demand that a student accused of examination misconduct and expelled for that misconduct must be afforded an opportunity by the body statutorily empowered to take such decision, either judicially or quasi-judicially, to :a. know the allegation against him; b. be present when the case against him is heard, and c. not only to state his side of the allegation but also to contradict the case against him by the cross-examination of the witnesses called by his accusers.

The undisputed facts clearly established that the Senate of the University, in their decision to expel the respondent for examination misconduct acted capriciously and arbitrarily and thereby violated the respondent's right to fair hearing, not only in the context of audi alteram partem (i.e. denying her an opportunity to be heard) under Section 36(1) of the Constitution, but also in terms of the right against double jeopardy, on the basis of her plea of autrefois acquit (the exoneration or acquittal) by the SDC, guaranteed by Section 36(9) of the Constitution. She had been able to show, satisfactorily, that the SDC tried her and acquitted her on the same allegation of examination misconduct the Senate of the same University "convicted and sentenced" her for in Exhibit E.

"Per EKO, J.S.C. IN FUTMINA & ORS v. OLUTAYO CITATION: (2017) LPELR-43827(SC)