The Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned the certificate forgery suit instituted by former Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology, Uche Nnaji, against the University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN), and six others until February 15, 2027.
Justice Hauwa Yilwa fixed the new date on Wednesday following the absence of counsel representing the Minister of Education, the first respondent in the case.
At the proceedings, Nnaji’s counsel, Akintola Makinde, SAN, informed the court that the minister was not represented. He also brought to the court’s attention a pending application seeking to regularise processes filed in the suit, noting that hearing notices had been served on the parties.
However, Chris Uche, SAN, counsel to the third to seventh respondents, recalled that the court had, on January 8, granted part of an earlier application seeking to regularise their processes, while the second prayer was yet to be determined.
Uche urged the court to deem the relevant processes as duly served. In her response, Justice Yilwa acknowledged that she had granted the first prayer but was yet to rule on the second.
Following the submissions, counsel assured the court that the outstanding issues would be resolved administratively. The matter was subsequently adjourned by agreement of the parties until February 15, 2027, for hearing.
Nnaji instituted the suit after allegations of certificate forgery were levelled against him.
In the case marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1909/2025, the former minister sued the Minister of Education, the National Universities Commission (NUC), UNN and its Vice-Chancellor, Professor Ortuanya.
Others listed as respondents include the university’s registrar, Ujam, and its Senate.
Through an ex-parte application, Nnaji sought the court’s permission to institute prerogative proceedings to prevent the university and its officials from interfering with his academic records.
He also requested an order of mandamus compelling UNN and its officials to release his academic transcript, while asking the Minister of Education and the NUC to use their supervisory powers to ensure compliance.
Additionally, he sought an interim injunction restraining the university and its officials from altering or tampering with his academic records pending the determination of the substantive suit.
However, the third to seventh respondents filed a preliminary objection, asking the court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and award substantial costs against the applicant.
In their nine-ground objection, the respondents argued that Nnaji failed to file his application for leave within three months of the alleged incident, contrary to Order 34, Rule 4(1) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019.
They further maintained that the action violated Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, 2004, rendering the proceedings incompetent.
The respondents also contended that the substantive application for prerogative orders was improperly initiated through a motion on notice rather than an originating motion, as prescribed by Order 34, Rule 5(1) of the court’s rules.
According to them, the suit was premature and speculative because there was no evidence that Nnaji had previously requested and been denied access to his academic records or that the university had interfered with them before the action was instituted.
They also challenged the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that disputes relating to students’ academic records, examinations, results and transcripts did not fall within the matters assigned to the Federal High Court under Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
The respondents further argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust available internal remedies and had not established any breach of his fundamental rights.
They added that the suit disclosed no reasonable cause of action against them, particularly Professor Ortuanya, whom they said acted solely in his official capacity as the university’s vice-chancellor.