May 20, 2025

Earlier this month, the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) publicly admitted that a technical error during the 2025 Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME) affected the scores of over 370,000 candidates.

The affected students, many of whom sat the exam in Lagos and the South-East, were issued incorrect scores due to a failed deployment of updated scoring software on servers in 157 centers.

JAMB has apologised and offered retake exams. But for students whose results were compromised and whose academic futures may hang in the balance —one question now looms: what legal rights do they have?

Can the Candidates Sue JAMB?

JAMB is a statutory body set up under the JAMB Act, Cap J1 LFN 2004, and it owes a legal obligation to conduct exams with integrity, transparency, and equal treatment of all candidates. This obligation includes the duty to maintain functioning systems that produce accurate scores.

Now, because JAMB is a public institution, its decisions fall under the principles of administrative law, and so there is technically a path to legal redress.

Option 1: Judicial Review at the Federal High Court

Candidates can approach the Federal High Court to request a judicial review of JAMB’s conduct. This type of legal action asks the court to examine whether JAMB’s actions were lawful, fair, and within its statutory powers.

The court may: Declare the original results invalid or unfair; Compel JAMB to re-issue corrected results; Order that affected students be reconsidered for admission or scholarship programmes.

What are the challenges?
Judicial review does not provide compensation it only offers corrective relief.

The process can be lengthy and technical, requiring legal expertise and court filing fees.

The applicant must demonstrate that internal remedies (like complaints to JAMB) were first exhausted.

Option 2: Suing for Damages

This route is more complex than judicial review. A candidate would be required to sue JAMB for negligence or breach of statutory duty and prove three things:

That JAMB owed them a duty of care; That this duty was breached (e.g., via a preventable technical error); That the breach directly caused a financial or reputational loss.

Examples where this might apply include:
Losing admission into a university with no fallback option;
Missing a scholarship opportunity due to incorrect scores;
Suffering emotional or professional harm traceable to the error.

What the challenges are:
Courts in Nigeria are reluctant to award large damages against public institutions unless there is:

Clear evidence of deliberate wrongdoing, Severe and proven losses, or A breach that clearly violated a statutory or constitutional right.

Proof of damage must be concrete and not speculative (e.g., letters showing admission rejection, revoked scholarships).

Legal costs may outweigh the likely award unless the case is exceptional.

Option 3: Class Action or Group Litigation

Where multiple candidates from the same centre or region were affected, they may bring a representative action commonly referred to as a class action. Affected students, through legal counsel, could seek:
A declaration that JAMB breached its statutory obligations; A structured redress scheme (e.g., re-evaluation, preferential admission review); Collective compensation where direct financial loss can be established.

What the challenges are:
Class actions are rare in education law cases in Nigeria and would require strong coordination.

Candidates must prove a shared interest and similar harm, and agree on representation.

Outcomes still depend on the court’s discretion and willingness to provide remedies beyond administrative orders.

Courtesy lawpadi