Hearing in a suit instituted by the former Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology, Uche Nnaji, against the University of Nigeria, Nsuka (UNN) and others was, on Thursday, stalled at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The case, which was fixed for hearing before Justice Hauwa Yilwa, was adjourned until April 20 for lawyers in the case to regularise their processes.
The development followed an oral application for adjournment by Chiamaka Anagwu, who appeared for UNN and four others, to enable them keep their house in order.
Nnaji’s lawyer, Sebastian Hon, SAN, and N.H. Oba, who represented the National universities Commission (NUC) did not oppose the application and Justice Yilwa adjourned the matter until April 20 for hearing.
The judge also ordered that a hearing notice be issued and served on the Education Minister, who was not represented in court
Nnaji had filed the suit following allegations of certificate forgery levelled against him.
The former minister, in an ex-parte motion, had sought an order granting him leave to issue prerogative writs prohibiting the university and its officials from “tampering with” or continuing to “tamper with” his academic records, among others.
Nnaji, in the suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1909/2025, sued the Minister of Education, the National Universities Commission (NUC), UNN and Ortuanya as 1st to 4th respondents.
He also joined the Registrar of UNN; Ujam and the Senate of the university as 5th to 7th respondents respectively.
He sought the leave to issue a prerogative writ of mandamus compelling the university and its officials to release his academic transcript to him, and asked the Minister of Education and the NUC to exercise their supervisory powers to compel UNN to do so.
He equally sought an interim injunction restraining UNN and its officials from “tampering” with his academic records pending the determination of the substantive suit, among others.
But in their preliminary objection, the 3rd to 7th defendants, prayed the court to strike out the suit for want of jurisdiction.
They also sought an order awarding substantial costs in favour of the 3rd, 4th and 6th defendants.
In a nine-ground of argument, they said the motion for leave was not filed within three three months of the occurrence of the subject matter.
They argued that this was contrary to Order 34 Rule 4(1) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019.
They also argued that it was contrary to the provisions of Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act 2004, which rendered the entire proceedings incompetent and rob this court of jurisdiction.
“The substantive motion for prerogative orders was wrongly brought by motion on notice instead of an originating motion as required under Order 34Rule 5 (1) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019.
“The application is incompetent, premature, speculative with there being no prior request or denial of release of academic records or any evidence of interference with the applicant’s academic records prior to the commencement of this action,” they said.
They equally argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain “matters concerning student academic records, examinations, results and transcripts.
They argue that the matter is not proceedings arising from the administration or management of any agency within the exclusive jurisdiction in Section 251(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
They also argued that internal remedy has not been exhausted and the applicants’ fundamental rights has not been breached.
Besides, they said no reasonable cause of action was disclosed against the 3rd to 7th respondents, particularly the 4th respondent, Prof. Ortuanya, who acted solely in his official capacity as VC of UNN, among others.
