By TAIYE AGBAJE

The University of Nigeria, Nsuka (UNN) Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Simon Ortuanya, and others, on Monday, prayed the Federal High Court in Abuja to strike out a suit filed by former Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology, Uche Nnaji.

The university and its officers, in a preliminary objection, urged Justice Hauwa Yilwa to strike out the suit for being statute barred.

They also urged Justice Yilwa to strike out the motion on notice for prerogative writs for being incompetent and wrongly commenced.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Nnaji had filed the suit following allegations of certificate forgery levelled against him.

The ex-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; a former acting Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Oguejiofor 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.

The judge had, on Oct. 6, fixed today for hearing following inability of the defence to file their responses.

However, when the case was called on Monday, counsel for the former minister, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, informed the court that counsel for the 3rd to 7th defendants, Prisca Udoka, SAN, just served on him a notice of preliminary objection earlier in the morning.

Olanipekun said though the matter was scheduled for hearing and they were ready to proceed, he said Udoka had also informed him that she would be filing a counter affidavit.

“Shortly before my noble lord sat, my learner friend came to whisper to us that they would be filing their counter affidavit to the substantive application tomorrow.

“Before then, we were just served with a notice of preliminary this morning.

“We want a date for definite hearing. We want to plead to my lord,” he said.

Justice Yilwa adjourned the matter until Jan. 13, 2026 for hearing.

She also ordered that hearing notices be issued to parties who were not in court.

NAN observes that minister of education and NUC were not represented in court.

The 3rd, 4th and 6th defendants (UNN, VC and former acting Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Oguenjiofor Ujam), in their preliminary objection, 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 ex-parte for leave was not filed within 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 and 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 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. (NAN)