The most recent and biggest law suit in recent years filed by the Students Representative Council(SRC), Faculty of law caucus against some members of the Students' Union executive members has generated mixed reactions among students of Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba-Akoko.

The law suit as filed gained large publicity since October 9, 2018 and many have been in anticipation of the first hearing.
The action is one of the biggest suit to evoke the powers of the Students Judicial Council as not too many suits have been filed in recent history of the Students' Union.

Today, Friday October 12 2018, witnessed the opening of the case between SEN. OLOTUPA-ADETONA AYOWOLE &
FACULTY OF LAW CAUCUS SU SRC.   (Plaintiffs)                                                                              .V.


Brought before THE STUDENTS’ JUDICIAL COUNCIL  which held at the MOOT COURT.

The proceeding which was slated for 9am started later than scheduled but was kicked off at the arrival of the Chief Justice, Ogunbameru Abiodun alongside five other judges who presided over the case.

The Charges were read by the clerk and counsels were to enter appearance.

The action was filed by the plaintiff on the grounds that the defendants usurped the powers of the STUDENTS REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL (SRC) and neglected to inform the SRC about the sale of the Students Union Shuttle bus which served the purpose of transportation for students of the varsity and that this contravenes the provisions of the Constitution of the Students' Union AAUA. Other grounds were misconducts and violation of constitutional provisions specifically in the sale of the Students' Union property (the Shuttle bus).

Only the counsel to the plaintiff, Fayeun Mosope  was present and entered appearance before the judges. 

The Plaintiff counsel made several interlocutory injunctions relying on order 10)b) of the SJC civil procedure rules.

The counsel moved a motion for the submission of the of the SU bus(which is the subject matter) to the custody of the court and as well that the proceeds of the sale of the bus be remitted to the court pending the determination of the case.

The court refused the motion for remittance of the bus on the grounds that there is a right of a third party who is the innocent purchaser.

She opened her case and the first witness, head of the SRC faculty of law, Olotupa Adetona was called up  to the witness' dock and put on oath.

During examination in chief, the 1st witness affirmed that he's the head of the Faculty of Law SRC, and that he brought the suit because the right of the Faculty Law SRC caucus has been breached by the defendants whom he identified.
He confirmed that due process was not followed by the defendants and he raised his grievances on personal note to the defendants but was turned down.

When asked, he confirmed that he raised an objection at the floor of the senate and that the Senate President and President had reasonable  notice of the objection and irregularity.

He claimed that selling the property of the whole Students of AAUA was not justified as the Constitution of the Students' Union provides that the whole committee of the house ought to have been notified before such sale

The Second witness, Senator Azeez Damilola representing Faculty of law was summoned to the dock and put on oath. He claimed that as a member of or the transport committee, he got the notice of the sale on the WhatsApp group for the committee, but was not informed during the committee meetings which he always attended.

As a representative of Faculty of Law, he claimed that the improper sale contradicts natural justice on the part of members of his faculty who also utilize the bus alongside other Students.

He urged the court to proffer remedy for the unjustified act and denied having a knowledge of a 1.3million grant for the committee to purchase bus for the Students Union.
However, Court at this point cautioned the counsel for leading the witness and was denied record as well.

Azeez claimed that he was on a particular day summoned by the C.S.O at the security unit to answer a petition against him for involving in cultism alongside the Caucus leader for faculty of law, a claim which he strongly negated and was released unconditionally.

He finally, said that the conspiracy should be frowned at by the court and the proper remedy be melted out.

The Director of Welfare(D.O.W) Ote Hassan was later summoned to the dock for examination.
The D.O.W claimed to be fully aware of his constitutional responsibilities to the whole body of students but refused further questions until he had a legal representative, and that he was not given ample notice also argued that 48hrs was not enough notice.

The plaintiff counsel objected by evoking  The civil procedure rule of SU SJC, which provides that 48hrs is sufficient notice to the defendant.

The court atmosphere gut comical eruption as the defendant argued profusely that the civil procedures could not apply to him and that he was entitled to an attorney since he could not find one nor get a chamber as constitutionally provided.

The court responded that _ignorance of the law is no excuse_ and that the defendant can represent himself where he feels no need to get a lawyer for himself.

The issue was put to rest by the chief justice after enlightening the witness on the provisions of the law and how it works. The examination in chief for  the D.O.W kicked off.

Answering questions on the sale of the bus, the  D.O.W was asked about his knowledge of the sale and contributions to the sale of the Shuttle bus.

The D.O.W narrated that at his assumption of office, three keys were handed over to him, which were for two SU buses and a shuttle bus and that the shuttle bus was in bad condition.
He said the shuttle bus driver complained of not being able to cope with the shuttle bus.
At about JULY, a new driver was allotted the Shuttle bus and the driver fixed the bus severally but it remained unfit for road use.

According to the D.O.W , It was usual that the driver fixed the bus but after three days the bus would break down again. This constrained the driver from making normal remittance of proceeds due to the bad condition of the bus.

At the budget stage before the legislative house, the House asked some questions and he told the house of the bad condition of the shuttle bus, but the Union lacked enough funds to fix the bus as it had no good battery, engine and tires.

The Chairman of the  Transport committee told him there's a resolution that the Shuttle bus be sold for the reparation of one of the SU buses with plate number 0H65OD which was faulty and had been neglected for too long at Iwaro Junction.

He related it to his president and it was resolved that the shuttle be sold for reparation of SU big bus.
The bus was sold to one Mr Ojo agbogbo for #200,000.

On further questioning, he said the SU big bus plate number, 0H65OD which had no tires, and had battery problem was fixed with the money made from the sale of the Shuttle bus and that the big bus is working well.

The court asked the cost of repairing the SU big bus,  but the D.O.W said he could not say the amount spent for the reparation of the big bus.

On further questions, the D.O.W claimed that is not the one saddled with the obligation of informing the SRC before sale.

In objection to the claim, the plaintiff counsel quoted Section 34 (a) iv (a(vii) that states that any executive member cannot liase with any corporate bodies on behalf of the union without the assent of the SRC, as such amounts to gross misconduct.

The D.O.W denied knowledge of  the said #1.3million naira grant for the procurement of a bus to the Transport committee.

The D.O.W admitted that #30,000 was deducted from the #200,000 and was paid to the driver without the SRC consent, after the driver threatened to remove things he bought on the shuttle bus.

He further confirmed that the #200,000 proceeds from the sale of shuttle bus was paid to him personally and that he did not know whether the Dean of Students Affair was carried along in the sale of the bus.

The Director of Welfare was not questioned further and was relieved from the witness' dock.

The court went on recess and reconvened after ten minutes.

The case has been adjourned till Friday, October 19,2018 for further hearing. And defendants who were absent from court were ordered to appear at the next hearing lest they face  fierce legal consequence.

Olufowose Samuel reporting for Legal Kekenke.

      _...making a statement._

No comments