accepted by the High Court on the grounds that the explanation for its failure to file
its affidavit in opposition was cogent enough, and that the University's substantive
case stood a good prospect of success.
6. The Complainant further alleges that the High Court, upon review, on 25 August
2020 ordered a rescission of the default judgment of 22 October 2019, and
subsequently affirmed the right of the University to deny the Complainant of
conferment of the doctorate degree.
7. The Complainant avers that, in particular, the decision to set aside the 22 October
2019 default judgment of the High Court was deficient, in that the judge appears not
to have taken into consideration the arguments p~t forward by her legal
representatives, as to why the University's .a pplication .£or rescission ought not to
have been heard. As evidence, the Complainant states that the written judgement
does not make a single reference to the arguments set fo~th by her representative.
/
8. The Complainant avers that she sought leave to appeal at the level of the Court of
Appeal, Supreme Court of Appeal and Constitutional Court and was denied each
time.
At the High Court, the Complainant brought an application for leave to appeal
against the judgmept and the order handed down on 25 August 2020.The
application for leave to appeal wa5'•heard on 16 September 2020 and was struck
from the roll with costs order.
·
·
ii. The Complainant approached' the Supreme Court of Appeal seeking leave to
appeal. On 9 February 2021, the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the
Complainant's appl~cation for leave to appeal with costs.
iii. The Complainant approached the Constitutional Court seeking an order for leave
to appeal and to set aside the judgment and order of the High Court. On 3 May
2021, the Constitutional Court dismissed the Complainant's application for leave
to appeal.
i.
9. The Complainant submits that in view of the foregoing, the judge having failed to
take her argum,ents into account, violated her rights under the African Charter on
Human and Peoples' Rights (the African Charter).
Articles alleged to have been violated:
10. The Complainant alleges violation of Articles 1, 3(1) & (2), 7(1) & 7(1) (c)& (d), 17(1),
19, and 26 of the African Charter.
Prayers of the Complainant
11. The Complainant prays that the Commission grant the following reliefs:
a) Declaration that the Respondent State violated the Complainant's rights
under Articles 1, 3(1) &(2), 7(1), 7(1)(c)&(d), 17(1), 19, and 26
Charter;
/ i·
'.q
(/,§~
J ( :;
l ._1
(')
0
~
U•
{;;.€