Hearing in a suit filed by former Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology, Uche Nnaji, against the University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN), and others was on Thursday stalled at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The matter, which was scheduled for hearing before Justice Hauwa Yilwa, was adjourned until April 20 to allow parties to regularise their processes.
The adjournment followed an oral application by counsel to UNN and four other defendants, Chiamaka Anagwu, who sought time to properly organise their filings. Nnaji’s counsel did not oppose the request, and Justice Yilwa subsequently fixed April 20 for hearing. The court also directed that a hearing notice be issued and served on the Minister of Education, who was not represented in court.
Nnaji instituted the suit following allegations of certificate forgery levelled against him.
In an ex parte motion, the former minister sought leave to issue prerogative writs restraining the university and its officials from allegedly “tampering with” his academic records. The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1909/2025, lists the Minister of Education, the National Universities Commission (NUC), UNN, and Prof. Ortuanya as 1st to 4th respondents. The Registrar of UNN, Prof. Ujam, and the university’s Senate were joined as 5th to 7th respondents.
Nnaji is also seeking a writ of mandamus compelling UNN and its officials to release his academic transcript, and urging the Minister of Education and the NUC to exercise their supervisory powers to ensure compliance. He further requested an interim injunction restraining the university from interfering with his academic records pending the determination of the substantive suit.
However, in a preliminary objection, the 3rd to 7th defendants urged the court to strike out the suit for lack of jurisdiction and to award substantial costs in their favour.
In a nine-ground argument, they contended that the motion for leave was not filed within three months of the occurrence of the alleged subject matter, contrary to Order 34 Rule 4(1) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019. They also cited Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act 2004, arguing that the action was statute-barred and therefore incompetent.
The defendants further maintained that the substantive motion was wrongly initiated by motion on notice instead of an originating motion as required under Order 34 Rule 5(1) of the rules. They described the application as premature and speculative, claiming there was no prior request or denial of the release of academic records, nor evidence of interference before the suit was filed.
Additionally, they argued that the court lacks jurisdiction over matters relating to student academic records, examinations, and transcripts, insisting that the case does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction outlined in Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
They also contended that internal remedies were not exhausted, no fundamental rights were breached, and no reasonable cause of action was disclosed against the 3rd to 7th respondents, particularly Prof. Ortuanya, who they said acted solely in his official capacity as Vice-Chancellor of UNN.