Justice A.M. Lawal of the Lagos State High Court, Ikeja Judicial Division, has ordered the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) to issue an admission letter to a student, David Ayooluwa Akindoyin, who has been admitted by Redeemer’s University.
The court held that JAMB infringed on his rights as enshrined in the Child Rights Law of Lagos State.
The court reiterated the order in a Notice of Consequence to Disobedience of Court Order issued against JAMB in a suit delineated ID/18508MFHR/24, which was a matter of enforcement of fundamental human rights filed on behalf of David Ayooluwa Akindoyin by his guardian, Mr. David Olapade Akindoyin, against the admissions body.
The court stated: “Take notice that unless you obey the order contained in the judgment of the High Court of Lagos State delivered by Hon. Justice A.M. Lawal on the 30th day of December 2024, where the court held that having come to the decision that from the inexactitude of the Respondent on the age requirement and the waiver of that by the conduct of the Respondent vis-à-vis the Applicant, the position of this Court is that there is no basis for the Respondent to deny, refuse or withhold the admission and the admission letter of the Applicant.
Doing so would be a violation of the right of the Applicant as enshrined in the Child Rights Law of Lagos, which was heavily relied upon by the Applicant, particularly in Section 3, the right planned for candidates with disabilities like autism, albinism, Down syndrome, etc., at item 21.0 of her guidelines that conferred the right to special care and protection on the gifted who are of young age.”
The court also held that it is clear that the denial of admission by JAMB will affect the applicant’s life goals and impact his survival and development, which are safeguarded by the Child Rights Law of Lagos State.
“The various Child Rights Laws of the State and the Child Rights Act are amplifications of the fundamental rights of the child. The Respondent can enforce and implement its policies from its parent ministry, the Federal Ministry of Education; however, the enforcement and implementation of policies will not be allowed if they lead to a breach of any of the fundamental rights of a citizen. Adamu v. A.G. Borno State (1996) 8 NWLR (Pt 465) 203.
“Having held that the Respondent has infringed the rights of the Applicant, the Respondent is ordered to issue admission and an admission letter to the Applicant as the Applicant has been validly admitted by Redeemer’s University. Contained in the judgment, you will be guilty of contempt of court and will be liable to be committed to prison,” the court stated in its notice to JAMB.
ALSO READ:What Excursions to Do in Cancún: A Complete Guide
The substantive matter where the order was given was filed by a Motion on Notice dated 2 December 2024, brought under the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules.
The applicant, David Ayooluwa Akindoyin, suing through his father, Mr. David Olapade Akindoyin, asked the court to declare that he has been validly admitted into Redeemer’s University and sought an order directing and compelling JAMB to issue him an admission letter to back his admission into Redeemer’s University, as well as restraining JAMB from excluding him from the list of admissions for Redeemer’s University.
The motion is supported by a statement which sets out the name and description of the applicant, the relief sought, and the grounds for seeking the relief.
It is also supported by an affidavit in support and a verifying affidavit stating that the Applicant has been admitted to study Computer Engineering at Redeemer’s University, with the admission letter attached as an exhibit. The deponent averred that the Applicant performed excellently in both WAEC and JAMB examinations, attaching both results.
In the written address dated 2 December 2024, the Applicant argued that the Respondent is about to discriminate against him contrary to the Constitution, which forbids discrimination on the grounds of ethnic group, place of origin, sex, religion, or political opinion.
The Applicant also supported his claim with the provisions of Sections 1, 10, and 15 of the Child Rights Act. The conclusion of the Applicant is that the Respondent’s refusal to issue him admission is discrimination based on age and birth.
