THE Guyana Appellate Court has ruled in favour of University of Guyana (UG) student, Clairmonte Cox, in a case where the university refused to review his results in the Law of Succession (313) and Trade Union Law (323) examinations.

Retired Chancellor (ag), Justice Carl Singh, along with Justice of Appeal, BS Roy and Madam Justice Dawn Gregory, an additional judge on February 24, 2017, dismissed an appeal by UG against the judgment of former Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang, who had decided in favour of the student, respondent Cox.

On the 14th August, 2013, the applicant Cox, by way of Originating Motion,had applied to the court for the following prerogative reliefs:
“(1) An order or Rule Nisi of Certiorari directed to the Board of Governors and the Council of the University of Guyana to show cause why an Order or Rule nisi of Certiorari should not issue to bring up to this Honourable Court and quash the decision made by the Board of Governors, the Council of the University of Guyana and the Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Guyana , contained in a letter by the Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Guyana to the applicant dated 4th June 2013, on the grounds that the said decision was made in breach of Rule 12 of the University Regulations, unfair, unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary, capricious , ultra vires, null , void and of no legal effect.

“(2) An Order or Rule Nisi of Mandamus directed to the Board of Governors of the University of Guyana , the Council of the University and the principal and Vice- Chancellor of the University compelling them to grant to the applicant within fourteen days of service on them of this Order and unconditional review of the law of Succession – Law 313 and Trade Union Law – 323 courses he had failed a the final examination of the university in the academic year 2002 – 2003 on the grounds that the failure to grant an unconditional review after the demand was made by the applicant in breach of Rule 12 of the University Regulations, unfair, unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary, capricious, ultra vires, null void and of no legal effect.”
In September 2000, the applicant was admitted to a course of study at the university leading to a degree of Bachelor of Laws.

On December 4, 2000, he entered into a loan agreement with the Ministry of Finance acting on behalf of the Government of Guyana (the lender for the sum of $300, 000 on terms and conditions set out in a written agreement.

Despite his default in making repayment of that loan, he was allowed to attend classes for the final year and to write the examinations in seven subjects. He wrote two supplemental examinations i.e. of Succession and Law of Insurance.

REFUSAL
Despite his pleas to the university for nine years, the university refused to release to him his grades for those examinations.

But on September 19, 2012, the High Court granted to him a writ of Mandamus compelling the university to release to him his examination grades for the academic year 2002 /2003.
Seven months after the Writ of Mandamus was served on the university, his examination results were released to him.

On May 7, 2013, pursuant to Rule 12 of the university’s regulations, he applied to the Assistant Registrar for examinations of the university within the prescribed time and demanded a review of the two subjects he had failed.

On June 4, 2013, he received an e-mail from the Principal and Vice-Chancellor, rejecting his demand for a review and demanding that he pay all outstanding fees and penalties as a condition precedent to being granted the review.

In his decision, then Chief Justice Chang said the court sees it fit to order that the decision of the university and the principal and vice-chancellor to refuse the applicant’s application for a review of his examination results of his two failed examination courses in the Law of Succession 313 and Trade Union Law 323 be quashed by Certiorari.

The University of Guyana and the principal and vice-chancellor of the university are commanded by Mandamus to review or cause to be reviewed the examination results of the application in relation to the Law of Succession (313) and Trade Union Law (323) within one calendar month of the rendering of this decision.

The Court of Appeal read the Notice of Appeal dated and filed the second day of April 2014 by and on behalf of the appellant University of Guyana and the Record of Appeal filed herein.
Upon hearing, Attorney K Ramkarran, Counsel for the appellant University of Guyana and Ms B Glasford, in association with and for Rex Mc Kay, S.C. and Mr. Neil Boston, S.C., counsel for the respondent Clairmonte Cletus Cox:

The Court of Appeal ordered that the appeal be and is hereby dismissed and that the judgment of the learned Chief Justice (ag) dated March 27, 2014, be and is hereby affirmed.
It is also ordered by consent that costs are agreed in the sum of $150, 000.00 be paid by the appellant to the respondent.