A few days after the suit was first heard on 6 October, Mr Nnaji resigned from office following public condemnation of his actions and amidst calls for his prosecution.
The University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN), its Vice-Chancellor, Simon Ortuanya, and other officials on Monday urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to strike out the suit filed by the former Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology, Uche Nnaji, relating to allegations of certificate forgery.
UNN and its Vice-Chancellor filed a preliminary objection asking Justice Hauwa Yilwa to dismiss the case for being “statute-barred.”
They also urged the court to strike out Mr Nnaji’s motion on notice for prerogative writs, describing it as incompetent and wrongly initiated.
“The application is incompetent and premature, there being no prior request or denial of release of academic records, or any evidence of interference with the applicant’s academic records before the commencement of this action,” they argued.
The former minister had, in September, filed the suit seeking several restraining orders to protect his academic records at UNN.
In an ex parte motion, he sought an order granting him leave to issue prerogative writs prohibiting the university and its officials from tampering with his academic records, among others.
The first to fourth respondents in the suit are the Minister of Education, the National Universities Commission (NUC), UNN, and the university’s Vice-Chancellor, Simon Ortuanya.
The UNN Registrar, a former acting Vice-Chancellor, Oguenjiofor Ujam, and the university’s Senate are listed as the fifth to seventh respondents.
As part of his prayers, Mr Nnaji sought leave to issue a prerogative writ of mandamus compelling the university and its officials to release his academic transcript to him. He also asked the Minister of Education and the NUC to exercise their supervisory powers to compel UNN to do so.
In addition, he sought an interim injunction restraining UNN and its officials from tampering with his academic records pending the determination of the substantive suit.
The suit came shortly before PREMIUM TIMES exposed the former minister for forging two certificates. PREMIUM TIMES’ investigation revealed he forged his bachelor’s degree and National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) certificate.
A few days after the suit was first heard on 6 October, Mr Nnaji resigned from office following public condemnation of his actions and amidst calls for his prosecution.
Monday’s Hearing
When the matter was called on Monday, counsel to the former minister, Wole Olanipekun, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), informed the court that counsel to the 3rd to 7th defendants, Prisca Udoka, SAN, had only that morning served him with a notice of preliminary objection.
Mr Olanipekun said that although the case had been slated for a hearing and his team was ready to proceed, Ms Udoka had told him she would also be filing a counter-affidavit.
“Shortly before my lord sat, my learned friend came to whisper to us that they would be filing their counter affidavit to the substantive application tomorrow,” he told the court while requesting a definite hearing date.
In a brief ruling, Judge Yilwa adjourned the matter to 13 January next year for hearing and ordered that hearing notices be issued to parties absent in court.
Neither the Minister of Education nor the NUC was represented at Monday’s proceedings.
Respondents’ preliminary objection
In their preliminary objection, the UNN and its Vice-Chancellor asked the court to strike out the suit for want of jurisdiction. They also requested an order awarding substantial costs in their favour.
The respondents said the motion ex parte for leave was not filed within three months of the occurrence of the subject matter. They argued this violated 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, thereby rendering the proceedings incompetent and stripping the court of jurisdiction.
They further asserted that the substantive motion for prerogative orders was “wrongly brought by motion on notice instead of an originating motion” as required by Order 34 Rule 5(1) of the Federal High Court Rules.
The respondents also argued that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain “matters concerning student academic records, examinations, results and transcripts,” which they said do not fall under matters arising from the administration or management of an agency within the exclusive jurisdiction of the court under Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
They added that internal remedies had not been exhausted and that the applicant’s fundamental rights had not been infringed.
They maintained that no reasonable cause of action had been disclosed against the 3rd to 7th respondents, particularly the 4th respondent, Mr Ortuanya, who they argued acted solely in his official capacity as vice-chancellor of the university.
Stay ahead with the latest updates!
Join The Podium Media on WhatsApp for real-time news alerts, breaking stories, and exclusive content delivered straight to your phone. Don’t miss a headline — subscribe now!
Chat with Us on WhatsApp
