The Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned the suit filed by former Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology, Uche Nnaji, against the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, UNN, and others, until February 15, 2027.
Justice Hauwa Yilwa fixed the date on Wednesday following the absence of counsel to the first respondent, the Minister of Education.
Nnaji instituted the suit following allegations of certificate forgery levelled against him.
At Wednesday’s proceedings, counsel to the former minister, Akintola Makinde, SAN, informed the court that the first respondent was not represented.
However, Chris Uche, SAN, who represented the third to seventh respondents, recalled that the court had, on January 8, granted part of an earlier application seeking to regularize their processes, while the second prayer remained outstanding.
Following the agreement of the parties, the judge adjourned the matter until February 15, 2027, for hearing.
According to the News Agency of Nigeria, NAN, Nnaji had, in an ex-parte application, sought leave to institute proceedings restraining UNN and its officials from tampering with his academic records.
He also sought an order of mandamus compelling the university and its officials to release his academic transcript.
The former minister further asked the Minister of Education and the National Universities Commission, NUC, to exercise their supervisory powers to compel the university to release the document.
In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1909/2025, Nnaji listed the Minister of Education, NUC, UNN and its Vice-Chancellor, Professor Ortuanya, as respondents. He also joined the university’s registrar, Ujam, and its Senate.
Meanwhile, the third to seventh respondents filed a preliminary objection, urging the court to strike out the suit for lack of jurisdiction.
In their nine-ground argument, they contended that the application was filed outside the three-month period prescribed under Order 34 Rule 4(1) of the Federal High Court, Civil Procedure, Rules, 2019.
They also argued that the action violated Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, 2004, and was therefore incompetent.
The respondents further maintained that Nnaji wrongly initiated the substantive application through a motion on notice rather than an originating motion, as required under Order 34 Rule 5(1) of the court’s rules.
They also argued that the suit was premature and speculative, claiming there was no evidence that the university had previously denied him access to his academic records or interfered with them.
The respondents further challenged the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that disputes involving students’ academic records, examinations, results and transcripts did not fall within its jurisdiction under Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution.
They also maintained that internal remedies had not been exhausted, no fundamental rights violation had been established, and no reasonable cause of action was disclosed against them.
