Proceedings in the suit filed by former Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology, Uche Nnaji, against the University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN) and others were on Thursday stalled at the Federal High Court, Abuja.

The matter, scheduled for hearing before Justice Hauwa Yilwa, was adjourned to April 20 to allow counsel to regularise their filings and processes.

The adjournment followed an oral application by Chiamaka Anagwu, counsel for UNN and four other defendants, who requested more time to put their documents in order. Counsel to Nnaji and representatives of the National Universities Commission (NUC) did not oppose the request, prompting the court to grant the adjournment.

Justice Yilwa also directed that a hearing notice be issued and served on the Minister of Education, who was absent from court.

Nnaji instituted the suit after allegations of certificate forgery were levelled against him. In an ex parte motion, he sought leave to issue prerogative writs restraining the university and its officials from allegedly tampering with his academic records.

In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1909/2025, Nnaji listed the Minister of Education, the NUC, UNN, and Prof. Ortuanya as the 1st to 4th respondents. He also joined the Registrar of UNN, Prof. Ujam, and the university’s Senate as the 5th to 7th respondents.

He is asking the court to grant an order of mandamus compelling the university to release his academic transcript, while also directing the Minister of Education and the NUC to exercise their supervisory powers to ensure compliance. Additionally, he seeks an interim injunction restraining the university and its officials from interfering with his academic records pending the determination of the substantive suit.

However, the 3rd to 7th respondents, in a preliminary objection, urged the court to strike out the suit for lack of jurisdiction and to award substantial costs in their favour.

They argued that the ex parte application was not filed within three months of the alleged cause of action, contrary to Order 34 Rule 4(1) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019, and in violation of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act 2004, which they said rendered the proceedings incompetent.

The defendants further contended that the substantive motion for prerogative orders was improperly commenced by motion on notice instead of an originating motion, as required under Order 34 Rule 5(1) of the same rules.

According to them, the application is premature and speculative, noting that there was no prior formal request for the release of academic records nor evidence of any interference with the records before the suit was filed.

They also maintained that the court lacks jurisdiction over matters relating to student academic records, examinations, results, and transcripts, arguing that such issues do not fall within the scope of Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

The respondents added that internal remedies had not been exhausted and that no fundamental rights of the applicant had been breached. They also insisted that no reasonable cause of action was disclosed against the 3rd to 7th respondents, including Prof. Ortuanya, who they said acted strictly in his official capacity as Vice-Chancellor of the university.