IN THE STUDENT UNION, STUDENTS’ JUDICIAL COUNCIL,

ADEKUNLE AJASIN UNIVERSITY

HOLDEN AT AKUNGBA AKOKO

Suit No: SJC/A/001

Motion No: SJC/A/001/02

The Law Students’ Representative Council, AAUA………………………APPLICANT

AND

The President, Law Students’ Society, AAUA ………………………..1^ST RESPONDENT

Attorney General, Law Students’ Society, AAUA……………………2^nd RESPONDENT

Body of Justice, Law Student………………………………………….3^rd RESPONDENT

Before their Lordships:

Honorable Justice David Oluwapelumi Adenegan (Chief Judge)

Honorable Justice Akinyemi Opemiposi Israel

Honorable Justice Elebute Aanuoluwapo Peter

Honorable Justice Akinremi Samuel

Honorable Justice Arogbokun Femi

RULING

INTRODUCTION.

This is the ruling of this Honorable Court on the motion ex-parte filed by the applicant on the 19^th of June, 2023 which was brought pursuant to Order 23, Rule 2(b) SJC Rules 2021 wherein the claimant/applicant was heard praying this Honorable Court for:

1. AN ORDER setting aside the inauguration of the third respondent in compliance with the interim injunction issued by the Court
2. AN ORDER OF MANDAMUS setting aside every appointment subsequent to the inauguration of the 3^rd Respondent and all official acts subsequent therewith.
3. AN ORDER for the award of damages worth Four Thousand Naira against the 1^st Respondent 2^nd
4. AND FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDER OR ORDERS as this Honorable Court may deem fit.

In support of this motion brought ex-parte, the applicant supported it with a 8 paragraph affidavit which was filed on the same day. The applicant went further to file a written address to support the motion ex-parte wherein he summarized his points and legal argument.  

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION:

The Applicant in his written address formulated one issue for determination which is:

1. Having regard to the circumstance of this case, whether or not the application should be granted.

LEGAL ARGUMENT.

The applicant canvass the following arguments which I shall proceed to review in this ruling.

The learned counsel submitted that, to be entitled to the order of judicial review all the applicant has to set out is that the order of the court has been disobeyed. In support of this the applicant relied on the decision of the court in the case of JOE BEST ESTATE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. NZEGWU & ORS (2015) LPELR-24317 (CA) (Paras 29-30) where the court stressed on the importance of obedience to order of court.

The applicant further submitted that this is notwithstanding whether the order was validly given or not. On this point, he relied on the case of ALHAJI AUDU SHUGABA v. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC [1999] 11 NWLR (Pt. 627) 459 where the court held that although it is undesirable for the court to make unbridled orders, orders of the court are to be respected and obeyed because the dignity and order of court cannot be maintained if its orders are treated disdainfully and scornfully without respect. See also, Nigerian Army v Mowarin (1992) 4 NWLR pt 235, p. 345 (CA)

Learned counsel maintained his position as exhibited in paragraph 4 of the affidavit that the interim order of the court was duly served on the respondents to his interim order application pursuant to Order 27, Rule 3, SJC Rules 2021 but nevertheless went against the order of the court thereby doing the act which was prevented by the order of the court. He submitted that this violates the constitutional provision of section 5(A)(IV) AAUASU Constitution which provides that the decision of this court shall be binding. 

He further argued that the court has emphasized in plethora of cases it has been held that where the order of a court has been violated, the court must restore sanctity by every means possible which includes the setting aside of what was done in defiance of the order.  He relied on the case of ABBI v. PRINCEWILL & ORS (2011) LPELR-3952 (CA).

RATIO:

I have examined carefully the processes filed by the applicant and have carefully listened to his arguments.  The position of law is clear and rock solid like the waters of Babylon that where an order of court exists on a particular matter, it precludes the parties from acting of reacting in defiance of the order.  As much as this is important to prevent the res from being destroyed, it is also important that court orders are obeyed in utmost respect for the principles of rule of law and sanctity of the human society.  I rely on the cases of Nigerian Army v Mowarin (1992) 4 NWLR pt 235, p. 345 (CA); UNIUYO v AKPAN (2013) LPELR-19995 (CA)

It is a contemptuous act and a behavioral pattern lesser than that of animals for people to take the law into their own hands.  It preaches no other thing that lawlessness and indeed is an invitation to anarchy and chaos. This is usually heart wrenching when these uncivilized acts are carried on by people who are reasonably expected to have a good knowledge of the law as a result of the position they occupy in the society.  The court generally frowns at an act of disobedience to a court order whether or not such order was validly obtained. Therefore, the act of the second and first respondent are unworthy. See JOE BEST ESTATE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. NZEGWU & ORS (2015) LPELR-24317 (CA) (Paras 29-30)

When this is done, the proper thing for the court to do is to reinstate the status quo prior to the defiance of the court order.  This is necessary to prevent the respect for the rule of law and protection of the powers of the court to adjudicate over matters. See Attorney-General Ekiti State v. Daramola  &Ors (2003) JELR 44841 (SC) Therefore, the court is obliged in this application to set aside the inauguration of the 3^rd Respondent by the 1^st and 2^nd Respondent without speaking of the merits of the case.  This is important to restore sanity and ensure compliance to rule of law in the AAUA Campus at large as discourage lawless at large. 

As regard the order to make damages, where a party claims damages it must be sufficiently proved by way of evidence. See Luke Nwanewu v. Benedict (2019) LER SC.254/2008. The applicant has not set out sufficient reasons in his affidavit to be entitled to damage which he claims.  Therefore, the claim for damages fails. 

ORDERS:

After carefully considering the application of the claimant/applicant, I thereby make the following orders:

1. AN ORDER setting aside the inauguration of the 3^rd Respondent done by the 1^st and 2^nd Respondent pending in  compliance with the interim injunction issued by this Honorable Court.
2. AN ORDER OF MANDAMUS setting aside every appointment subsequent to the inauguration of the 3^rd Respondent and all official acts subsequent therewith.

I make no award as to cost or damages. 

For Counsel…………………………. O.O. Olatunde, Equity Private Chambers.

Dated this…………… day of …………, 20….

D.O. Adenegan

Chief Judge

AAUASU SJC

————————————

Signature