Zodetsa & 3 Others v Council for the University of Malawi (Civil Cause 681 of 1994) [1994] MWHCCiv 18 (3 May 1994)

A Pit tr) lfTRA-rivt& ~ ,1 r ,;{tJJltt,t-L tfIV/f,J/-Gm111 ./, IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI BETWEEN: PRINCIPAL REGISTRY CIVIL CAUSE N0.681 OF 1994 LEONARD ZODETSA r, • • 1 /' ,_;• ;• \ '. C ,; . ,~ .~~'. ' . . ·~· .............. ~ ...... . ' TIKONDWE KHEMBO ......................... -and -RALPH BANDA ............................. -and -COSMA$ KAUNDA ........................... -and -1ST APPLICANT 2ND APPLICANT 3RD APPLICANT 4TH APPLICANT COUNCIL FOR THE 5UN,,I.,V!,RSITY OF MALAWf •••• RESPONDENT CORAM: , -MTEGHA' J • Kasambala, Counsel for the Applicants Kanyongolo (Mrs), Counsel for the Respondent Mthukane, Official Interpreter Mikanda, Recording Officer R U L I N G This is an application by four students at Chancellor College, Zomba, for judicial review of their suspension from the College by the respondent, Council for the University of Malawi. Chancellor College is a constituent College of the University of Malawi which came into being by an Act of Parliament, the University of Malawi Act Cap. 30:02. By section 8 of the Act, the University Council was established, and section 10 conferred powers on the Council to run the affairs of the University. The first applicant is a final year student at the College. According to his affidavit in support of the application, on 20th February, 1994 some students at the cafeteria were chanting songs directed at Mr. Ntata who it was alleged had convicted some students who were harrassing female students. By the time he finished his meal, the students had dispersed. As he was going to his house he passed nearby Mr. 2/ ..•. 77 -2 -Chimbwete's house. Mr. Ch:i.mbwete is a lecturer and Warden. When he reached the car park he saw Mr. Chimbwete confronting students. Messrs Ntema and Ntata were also the:,--e. When he came next to Mr. Chimbwete he enquired as to what was happening, since at that time students were shouting that he, Mr. Chimbwete, was innocent while Mr. Ntata was guilty of betrayal by suspendj_ng LL ,_re students when he chaired the Disciplinary Committee. He went to his hostel. But this was not the end of the matter. Two weeks later he got a letter asking hj_m to m·~et Mr. Chimbwete at the Sports Complex. \/~en he met Mr. Chimbwete, he was told "in confidence" that his name was among the people who organised a demonstration to harrass Mr. Ntata and '.:.is wife and Dr. Isabel Phiri, and that if he pinpointed the people who were actually involved, ne would be taken off the hook and that he would be used as a witness in the Disciplinary Committee; he declj_ned this offer since he did not know ,.,r._::, tnt, culprits were as he did not participate. At that stagd Mr. Chimbwete disclosed to him some of the students who would appea.r before tne Disciplinary Committee. On let March he got a note requesting him to appear before Disciplinary Ccmrnittee the following day. When he went there he was charged with the offence of "leading a group of students which wen~ to La::-rass Mr. Ntata and his wife at their house and also Dr. Isabel Phiri". He denied the charge. They did not produce any witness. When SUCC Chairman asked what he was doing at Mr. Chimbwete's house he explained. At that juncture, Mr. Chimbwete said some of the students in the room were witnesses only and ::-1ot accused, but he did not specify whom, since all of them were charged with the same offence. The other students were Enem Kachingwe, Harris Mwiba, Willie Chimbalanga and Moses Tembo. The applicant's af~idavit then shows that on 22nd March he was shocked to read on the notice board that he had been suspended fror;1 26th March to 22nd May, 1994 and on 23rd March a lettar was written to him by the Acting Principal. The relevant part of that letter stated: "I write in order to inform you that you have been suspended for one teaching term from 26th March, 1994 up to 22nd May, :994. The College has taken this action againet you because of your leading of student d,.::non;:; trations and boycott of classes on 8th November, 1993 and 3rd February, 1994 and providing leadership to a g-roup of disgruntled students who staged anti-feminist p :'otests at the homes of Warden P. Ntata and Dr. Isabel Fhiri. ;, Accordi11g to the affidavit, he was shocked because he never appeared befvre the Disciplinary Committee to answer such 3/ .... _, -3 -charges, especially the two other charges. He is now seeking relief from this Court to have the decision of the Acting Principal to be reversed. It would appear from the affidavit that the applicant was charged, on 1st March, 1994, with the offence of leading a group of students to harrass Mr. and Mrs Ntata and Dr. Phiri. Yet on his letter of suspension, two further allegations were made, namely, that he led students to boycott classes on 8th November, 1993 and 3rd February, 1994. He was never brought before the Disciplinary Committee for these two other charges. I will now turn to the second applicant's affidavit. He is Tikondwe Khembo, also doing his final year at Chancellor College. His affidavit discloses that on 11th February, 1994 he was called by the Administration to appear before the Disciplinary Committee. When he went there he found that the C,ornm1ttee oomprised of the following people: (1) Mr. Ntata, Warden -Chairman (2) Mr. Malunga -Assistant Registrar (3) Mrs Lungu -Warden/Matron (4) Mrs Sikwese -Warden/Matron (5) SUCC Chairman (6) SUCC Secretary (7) SUCC Deputy Tuckshop Director He was charged with the offences of damaging College dustbin, 2 fluorescent tubes in Shakespeare Hall and using swearing and abusive language on the campus. He denied these charges. No witness was called and he was not allowed to call any witnesses. Even their principal witness, Mr. Sangala, the Chief Security Officer, was not called. The affidavit further shows that he was advised that he had been suspended for disrupting public order through swearing, excessive drunkenness and vandalising College property. He protested to the SUCC which queried the decision. The Principal met the SUCC and the decision was reversed pending retrial of the case. One would have thought that the matter had been resolved at this juncture, but it was not to be. The applicant's affidavit goes on to say that following the reversal of the decision by the Principal, the academic staff were not happy. They threatened to go on strike until and unless the Principal resigned which he did in fact did and his deputy became Acting Principal. On 22nd March, 1994, by a memorandum addressed to the staff and students by the Acting Principalp the applicant was advised that he had been suspended for one teaching term, wit effect from 26th March to 22nd May, 1994 for 11excessive drun nness, vandalisation of College property (smashing fluo escent tubes and trash bin in Shakespeare Hall), use of 4/ .... J -4 -abusive language (kunyada) and disturbing peace in M'mbelwa Hall". He would only be readmitted after paying for the vandalised property. It would appear, from the affidavit, that the applicant appeared before the Disciplinary Committee only once, and the decision by the Committee to suspend him was, after intervention by SUCC, revoked pending a retrial. This never took place, and it would appear that his second suspension was without the decision of the Disciplinary Committee. I will now go to the third applicant's affidavit. The applicant is a second year student at the College. His affidavit reveals that sometime early in the second year he was called by the Asaistant Registrar, Mr. Malunga, who told him that he was one of the students involved in the breaking of College property. He denied the charge and told Mr. Malunga that the only day he had been at the scene of where College property was bro~en was in Chilembwe Hall when his friend Khumbo Chongwe broke some property after he, Khumbo Chongwe, quarrelled with fellow students, a quarrel which he, the applicant, was trying to pacify. He was asked to put it in writing which he did, and Khumbo in fact admitted to have broken the property. He was surprised that he was called to appear before the Disciplinary Committee together with others and he was charged with breaking two louvres, switching off lights at night, watering rooms and urinating in rooms in Umodzi Hall at night. He denied these allegations. There were the following witnesses: Ofwa Kalolokesya, Beatrice Kabambe, Doreen Ngonda, Modesta Liwimbi, Alinafe Mwale and Susan Ducraz; these witnesses denied seeing the applicant commit these offences. Anyway a few weeks later he got a serious warning from the Administration of having been guilty of excessive drunkenness. Again, one would have thought the matter was closed, but this did not happen. According to the affidavit, in February, 1994 the applicant was relaxing outside Chilembwe Hall when Mike Mbalale, a fellow · student started broadcasting on his "Chirunga Broadcasting Service" that it is rummoured that some ladies in Chirunga Hall were using a vibrator believed to have been purchased in Namibia. At that stage Linda Milowa and Tione Chilambe came to his place and demanded to know who Mbalale was referring to. They said that if he did not tell them they would report to Administration. Then Mbalale came and told them that he was not referring to them. A few days after, he was called to appear before the Disciplinary Committee. He was not told why he was wanted by the Committee, but when he appeared, he was charged of harrassing female students by slanderous campaign together with Peter Kaombe, Mike Mbalale and Cosmas Kaunda, yet Cosmas Kaunda was not even there. At the hearing Linda Lihowa told the Committee that she reported him and Peter Kaombe because they were around when Mike Mbalale was broadcasting. On 22nd March, 5/ .... -5 -1994 he was suspended from College with effect from 26th March to 22nd May, 1994 for excessive drunkenness, harrassment of female students in Umodzi Hall and abetting Mbalale's campaign of slander against female students. He is therefore praying to this Court to review the decision. I will now turn to the fourth and last applicant. His affidavit discloses that he was, on Friday, 11th February, 1994, called by the Administration to appear before the Disciplinary Committee. When he appeared, he was charged with: (a) breaking louvres in Umodzi Hall, (b) urinating in Umodzi Hall, (c) excessive beer drinking, (d) switching off lights in Umodzi Hall, and (e) being found in girls hostel outside stipulated hours. ,,---., He was never informed of these offences before he appeared before the Committee. He denied the allegations and no witnesses were called except two girls Doreen Ngonda and Modesta Liwimbi who told the Committee that whilst drinking together at Nix Pub in Blantyre he had confided in them that he had accidentally broken two louvres in Umodzi Hall; yet he never drank with the girls at Nix's Pub or any other place. On Friday 18th February, 1994 he was advised that he was ~ound guilty of all the charges except (b) and (d), and that he would be suspended from the rest of the term and to return on condition that he paid for the two louvres he had broken. Following this suspension he lodged a complaint to SUCC. The SUCC wrote to the Principal and after a meeting with the Principal on 21st February, the suspension was suspended pending a retrial of the case. Soon thereafter the Principal was forced to resign and an Acting Principal took over. He convened another Disciplinary Committee and the applicant was told to appear before it. When he appeared he was charged with "being an accomplice in Mike Mbalale's slanderous campaign against female students. He denied the charge and he was supported by Linda Mihowa, the complainant and Mike Mbalale himself. Yet, on 22nd March, 1994 he was advised by the Acting Principal that he had been suspended from the College for the rest of the academic year for "excessive drunkenness, breach of regulation on hours for visiting hostels of the opposite sex, harrassment of female students in Umodzi Hall, use of obscene language, vandalism of College property and implication in Mike Mbalale's slander" campaign against some of the female students" and that he could only be readmitted at the beginnning of 1994/95 academic year after paying for the damaged property. This, in brief, is the evidence that emerges from the applicants' affidavits. 6/ .... -6 -Two affidavits in opposition have been filed. The first one, by Mr. Ben W. Malunga, Assistant Registrar at Chancellor College was filed on the 8th April, 1994. The second one, filed on the 12th April, 1994, was sworn by Dr. Kings Phiri, Acting Principal of Chancellor College. Mr. Malunga's affidavit discloses that indeed the four applicants were suspended from Chancellor College on disciplinary grounds. It further discloses that on 11th February, 1994 the College Disciplinary Committee was convened to hear cases of the second, third and fourth applicants as indicated in their affidavit. It heard the evidence against them, and their defence and found them guilty of the off6nces levelled against them and made recommendations to the Principal who suspended them. Further, the affidavit discloses that the Committee was convened on 9th March, 1994 to consider again the conduct of the first, third and fourth applicants. At this meeting the Vice Principal was in attendance. The Committee -confirme.d the recommendations of 11th February, 1994 which included the second, third and fourth applicants. The Committee proceeded to hear evidence against the first, third and fourth applicants, the third and fourth applicants the charges were different, and after hearing their defence they made the recommendations to the Principal who decided to suspend them after taking into account previous offences and total breakdown of discipline at the College. The affidavit went on to deny that the disciplinary committee was irregular, defective or improperly constituted; that the applicants were denied an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or call their witnesses. It further stated that there is no procedure for appeal to the Students Union as the applicants did; and that another rehearing would have been unconstitutional. The affidavit of Dr. Phiri, the Acting Principal, is to the effect that he was not available on 11th February, 1994 to chair the Disciplinary Committee meeting; as a result Mr. Ntata was appointed to chair it and nothing was irregular. Further, the affidavit discloses that he could not confirm the alleged retrial to have been agreed because there was nothing in writing between the Ex-Principal and SUCC; neither did he find any communication from the Principal to the students and his decision to suspend the applicants followed recommendations from the Committee of 11th February and 9th March, 1994 and no person has been punished twice for the same offence. This is the evidence before me. I have to relate this evidence to the law which is applicable. The remedy of judicial reviGw is concerned with the reviewing of the decision-making process itself. It is, in general, not concerned with the merits of the decision in 7 I .•.. -7 -respect of which the application has been made. Lord Hailsham in Chief Constable of North Wales Police v. Evans (1982) 1 WLR 1155 at page 1160 had this to say: "It is important to remember in every case that the purpose (of judicial review) is to ensure that the individual is given fair treatment by the authority to which ho has been subjected and that it is no part of that purpose to substitute the opinion of the judiciary or of individual Judges for that of the authority constituted by law to decide the matters in question11• The duty of the Court is therefore only to ensure that where lawful authority has been conferred by Parliament that authority is not abused by unfair treatment. If the Courts were to decide the issues between the parties, they would be usurping the powers conferred on the authorities. It is only in exceptional cases -The Wednesbury Principle (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 K. B. 223 that the Courts will interfere with the decisions reached by public bodies performing public functions; and this is where the decision reached is such that no reasonable persons or body properly constituted could have reached that decision. Prima facie, therefore, the decision suspending the applicants by the respondent cannot be interferred with by judicial review unless it is unreasonable. With this background of the law as it is at the moment, I will turn to the arguments advanced for and against each of the applicants by their learned Counsel to whom I am grateful for their formidable arguments and case authority they advanced in the course of hearing this matter. T will nov· deal with the 1st applicant. It has been argued on behalf of the 1st applicant by Mr. Kasambala that there was serious violation of the rules of natural justice. He contended, firstly, that the Committee did not disclose the charge/charges he was to face before the Committee to enable him to prepare his defence. It will be noted1 according to the first applicant1s affidavit, about two weeks after the 20th of February, 1994 he got a note from Mr. Chimbwcte to meet Mr. Chimbwete. When the applicant met Mr. Chimbwctc he was told, "in confidence;; that his name was listed as being among the ring leaders who organised a demonstration against Mr. Ntata and proceeded to harrass him and his wife and Dr. Isabel Phiri; and if he told him people who were actually involved, he Mr. Chimbwete, would get him off the hook. HG turned down the offer, but on 1st March he saw from the notice board that on the following day he was to appear before the Disciplinary Committee and when he went there he was charged with leading a group of 8/ .... -8 -students which went to harrass Mr. Ntata, his wife and Dr. Isabel Phiri. This has not been traversed by the respondent. Mr. Kasambala has submitted that on these facts it cannot be said that the first applicant was informed of the charges he was to answer at the hearing of the Committee; people who have to appear before a tribunal must be told of the offences -Rid'e v Baldwin (1964) AC 40 and Kanda v Government of Malaya (1962 AC 322. In the rormer case, the Chief Constable of Brighton had been tried, jointly with others, on a charge of conspiracy to obstruct the course of justice. He was acquitted, but the others were convicted, and in sentencing the others, the Judge took opportunity, on two occasions, to comment adversely on the Chief Constable's leadership of the force. The Watch Committee, without giving any notice or offering any hearing to the Chief Constable, unanimously dismissed him from office. His solicitor then applied to the Watch Committee for hearing. He was allowed to appear before a later meeting of the Committee, at which meeting the Committee confirmed its previous decision. The r Chief Constable appealed to the Home Office, but his appeal was dismissed. He applied to the Court for a declaration that his dismissal was void on the ground that he had not been given notice of any charge against him and no opportunity of making his defence. The House of Lords, by a majority of four to two, held that the Committee's decision was void because neither he nor his solicitor were given any notice of specific charge: there was violation of natural justice. In the latter case, Lord Denning, at page 337, had this to say: "If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him, and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them". It has been subitted, by Mrs Kanyongolo, that the first applicant was informed of the charges against him by Mr. Chimbwete. I believe she is referring to the meeting which the applicant had with Mr. Chimbwete in response to Chimbwete's note when Chimbwete told the applicant "in confidence" that the applicant's name was among the ring leaders who organised a demonstration against Ntata, his wife and Dr. Isabel Phiri. I do not think this could be interpreted that the applicant had been informed of the charges he was going to answer. After all, the information was given "in confidence", and Mr. Chimbwete wanted the applicant to supply him with the names of the ring leaders. What is the position of the applicant? It is quite clear in my view that he was not informed of the charges he was going to answer before the Disciplinary Committee on 2nd March, 1994. 9 / •••• -9 -It will be noted that, in his letter suspending the first appl.ircant, Dr. Kings Phiri stated that the first applicant was being suspended because of "leading of student demonstrations and boycott. of classes on 8th November, 1993 and 3rd February, 1994 and providing leadership to a group of disgruntled students who staged anti-feminist protests at the homes of Warden P. Ntata and Dr. Isabel Phiri". Clearly the charge of leading of student demonstrations and boycott of classes on the 8th November, 1993 and 3rd February, 1993 was never communicated to the first applicant; and it was never discussed in the Disciplinary Committee. Clearly he was not informed of this charge against him. There was, in my view, clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Mr. Kasambala advanced the same argument for the second applicant. It will be recalled that the second applicant was called to appear before the Disciplinary Committee on 11th February, 1994. When he went there he was charged with vandalising College property. It is quite clear that he was not informed, first on his going there, of the offences which he was going to answer before the Committee. I have looked at the two affidavits in opposition. I cannot find anything in those affidavits which shows that the applicant was informed of the charges before he went to the Committee. Mr. Kasambala again advanced the same argument for the third applicant. It will be recalled that the third applicant was called by Mr. Malunga, Assistant Registrar. He was told that he was one of the students who were involved in breaking College property. He denied the allegation and he was told to put it in writing which he did. In February he was called to appear before the Disciplinary Committee -was charged with breaking louvres, switching off lights, watering and urinating in rooms of Umodzi Hall; he denied those allegations, but was shocked to get a serious warning of having been found guilty of excessive drunkenness. Clearly, again, this charge was not preferred against him; neither was he warned about it. In any case, one would have thought the matter had been closed after he was warned; yet, one of the reasons for suspending him on 23rd February was excessive drunkenness. A few days later, he was asked to appear again before the committee, now charged with harrassing female students together with Mike Mbalale. He denied the charges. Although witnesses were called at this meeting, the applicant was not forewarned of the charges. It would appear the same applied to the fourth applicant who was called.to appear before the Disciplinary Committee on 11th February charged with breaking louvres and urinating in Umodzi Hall, excessive drinking switching off lights and being 10/ ..... -10 -found in girls hostel after hours, although witnesses were called to testify. In brief, then, one would conclude that the principles of natural justice, in not warning the applicants of the offences they were to answer when they were to appear before the Disciplinary Committee, were violated. It has also been contended, on behalf of the appli_cants, that the committee was defectively constituted. Mr. Kasambala has contended that the Students Rules and Regulations -and in particular, Regulation 16.2 states: "The College Disciplinary Committee shall normally comprise of the following: Vice Principal -Chairman College Registrar -Secretary Warden Students Union Advisor Matron Chairman or Vice Chairman of Students Union Speaker or Deputy Speaker of Students Union and College Union Representative". He has ar~ued that when some of these applicants were appearing before the Committee, it was not properly constituted, for example, the Committee of 11th February, 1994 was composed of the following: (a) Mr. P. Ntata -a Warden -Chairman (b) Mr. M. Malunga -Assistant Registrar (c) Mrs Lungu -Warden (d) Mrs Sikwese -Warden/Matron (e) SUCC Chairman (f) SUCC Secretary (g) SUCC Deputy Tuckshop Dir0ctor The Committee could hardly be said it was properly constituted. Mrs I<anyor,golo has submitted that the Committee was properly constituted. She says that according to the rules it was not mandatory that the persons listed in the rules should be present. Furthermore, Statute xvii(lO) of the University of Malawi does not say the persons listed must be present -a third of them will suffice. With respect to Mrs Kanyongolo, I agree that the Rules are not mandatory that all the members must be present; but Statute xviii(lO) of the University of Malawi applies only to Statutory Committees and these arc the Senate, the Faculties, the Schools, the Appointments Committe0 and the Finance Committee, and not the Disciplinary Committee. 11/ .... -11 -The general principle is that when power to exercise certain functions is devolved upon a group of persons, it should be exercised by those persons upon whom it is conferred. This rule is strictly enforced. In the same way, participation of non members in the deliberations at decisions of a collective body may invalidate its acts. Lord Wright, M. R. in the case of Middles3x County Valuation Committee v West Middlesex Assessment Area Committee (1937) Ch.361 said: "lt would be most improper on general principles of 1aw that extraneous persons, who may or may not have independent interests of their own, should be present at the formulation of that judicial decision". The ca:::.e of ! ... eary v Nationa.l Union of Vehicle Builders ( 1971) Ch. 34 illustrat~s this, where a non member of the Committee participated fully in the decision making process to expel the plaintif'f. It was held that the participation of a non member in the deliberations of tho Committee invalidated the decision. Let us now see the composition of the Committee of the 11th February. The 'lice principal should have been the Chairman, yet Mr. Ntata, Warden, was the Chairman. The rules provided for one Warden: there were three Wardens including Mr. Ntata. The rules provided for the College Registrar to be Secretary -he was not there except the Assistant Registrar. The rules provided for Speaker or Deputy Speaker: there was none. The rules did not provide for SUCC Deputy Tuckshop Directer, but he was there. In all fairness, the composition was quite wrong, and, as we have seen, this invalidated the decision. The second, third and fourth applicants should not have been condemned by this Committee. 'v-!"r;ile I ar;; still on the composition of the Committee, the questio~ of bias has also exercised my mind, and indeed, the mind of Mr. Kasambala. The principle is "Nemo Judex in rea sua" -no man is a Judge in his own cause. The affidavits of the first9 third and. fourth applicants show that one of the reasons for their suspension was that they harrassed female students and Mr. NtLta. It would appear that Mr. Ntata was harrassed because he was a feminist. Mr. Ntata sat on the Disciplinary Committee. The rule I have stated earlier on applied in this case. This rule hc.s become so engrained in our law that it would be folly to ignore :i.t. In R. v. Sussex Justices Exp. McCarthy (1924) 256 a soljcitc2 was acting for a client who was suing a motorist for damages caused in a road accident. He was also Acting Clerk to the justices who were trying the motorist and retired with them when they \•Jere considering the decision. It was held that the conviction of the motorist could not stand even though the justices did not consult the Clerk. Lord Hewart, C. J. expressed the essence of the rule when he said: 12/ .... • r -12 -"The question therefore is not whether in this case the deputy Clerk made any observation or offered any criticism which might not properly have made or offered; the question is whether he was so related to the case in its civil aspect as to be unfit to act as Clerk to the justices in the criminal matter. The answer to that question depends not upon what actually was done but upon what might appear to be done. Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the cause of justice." In the instant case, although Mr. Ntata might not have influenced the decision to suspend the three applicants, the position is that he was an interested party or might be seen to be an interested party. To say that Mr. Ntata's appointment to chair the committee was not irregular as stated in Dr. Kings ' Phiri's affidavit is not, in my view, correct when one takes int0 account of these authorities. The same principles would apply to the first applicant because there was, on the Disciplinary Committee of 2nd March, 1994. Mr. Chimbwcte, against whom serious allegations were made by the first applicant that he was requesting the first applicant for the names of the culprits so that he could take the first applicant off the hook. The decision of the committee could not, on these grounds, stand. It has been argued by Mrs Kanyongolo that even if the composition of the Committee of 11th February and 3rd March, 1994 was wrong, the Committee of 9th March, at which the Acting Principal presided, had confirmed the decisions of the 11th February and 3rd March, so that the applicants were not prejudiced, It is quite clear that those decisions were null and void -so no subsequent meeting could revive them. A number of other minor issues were raised which pertained to the truthfulness of the evidence deponed by the applicants and the respondent. Other points raised the question of hearsay evidence being admitted by the Committee etc. As I have pointed out earlier on, the question to determine is whether the procedure adopted when the Committee reached their decision is in conformity with the normal norms of justice. If not, whether the Committee arrived at the decision which is right or wrong wrong, it docs not matter; it has to be quashed. As I have shown, there was gross breach of the principles o-f natural justice; as such the decisions, though I agree with the sentiments expressed by Mrs Kanyongolo that there was 13/ .... -13 -breakdown of discipline at the College, must be quashed. I quash them and order that the applicants must be reinstated. The respondent to be condemned in costs for this application. PRONOUNCED in open Court this 3rd day of May, 1994 at Blantyre. J/-!l'--1-~_/ H. M. Mtegha /£! JUDGE