Get Guardian on GoogleJustice H.A. Gegele of the Kwara State High Court, on Wednesday, rejected, though on technical grounds, the prayers of Dr. Stephen Olawale Fasakin, seeking recognition as the real national president of the University of Ilorin (UNILORIN) Alumni Association.
Gegele ruled that the plaintiff and eight others were elected in 2020 for a four-year term to lead the association, and as such ought to have vacated the office in March 2024.
While the plaintiffs pleaded that they be restored because their tenure was truncated two years into office, the court reasoned that there was no need to upset the ongoing Alumni administration led by Prof. Jeleel Kilani.
Counsel to the plaintiffs, Tohir Olaitan Jimoh, was, however, not pleased with the ruling, regretting that “the court did not go into the details of the case. It only considered whether the applicants still had an enforceable right to their tenure, particularly whether Dr. Fasake’s tenure had expired.”
According to him: “the court was of the view that since the tenure had expired, there was no existing right that could be enforced. That was essentially the summary of the judgment,” he told newsmen in Ilorin.
He noted that the court did not consider the allegations and counter-allegations by both parties, either against the applicants or the respondents, “it simply addressed the issue of the applicants’ tenure,” he added.
He stated that the Fasakin‘s legal team would obtain a copy of the judgment, and go through the details.
“Our position is that although the tenure has technically expired, it did not expire naturally. It was truncated by the actions of the respondents.
“We believe that even though the court may hold that the tenure has expired, that does not mean we should simply fold our arms. There were circumstances that prevented the applicants from completing their tenure, particularly their removal from office.
“So, I cannot fully express my feelings about the judgment yet. After reviewing it and discussing it with my clients, we will be able to determine the next course of action,” he said.
He lamented further that: “the court did not consider the merits of the case. Its decision was based entirely on the fact that the applicants’ tenure had expired.
“Our argument is that although the tenure might have technically expired, the applicants did not complete their four-year term because of the actions of the respondents and some other individuals who are not parties to this suit.
“We cannot simply say that someone’s tenure has expired when, in the actual sense, that person was prevented from completing the term of office.
“You cannot truncate someone’s tenure and then turn around to argue that the tenure has naturally expired.
“As I said earlier, we will review the judgment, discuss it with our clients and determine the next step.
“When someone is elected into office but is prevented from completing the term, you cannot, in the actual sense, say that the person has completed or exhausted the tenure.
“These are legal issues. There may be existing precedents that are not favourable to our position, but I believe this is something we can still challenge further, even up to the Supreme Court.
