The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN), Professor Simon Ortuanya, and other top officials have filed a preliminary objection to a suit instituted against them by former Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology, Uche Nnaji, urging the Federal High Court in Abuja to strike out the case as statute-barred and incompetent.
The objection, filed before Justice Hauwa Yilwa, argues that the former minister’s motion on notice for prerogative writs was wrongly commenced and filed outside the legally stipulated timeframe.
Other defendants in the case include the Minister of Education, the National Universities Commission (NUC), the UNN Registrar, former Acting Vice-Chancellor Professor Oguenjiofor Ujam, and the Senate of the University.
Nnaji had instituted the suit, marked ABJ/CS/1909/2025, while still in office, following allegations of certificate forgery leveled against him.
During Monday’s proceedings, Nnaji’s counsel, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), informed the court that he was served with the defendants’ preliminary objection only minutes before the session began. He further stated that a counter-affidavit would be filed and requested a definite date for hearing.
Justice Yilwa consequently adjourned the matter to January 13, 2026, directing that hearing notices be served on all parties not present in court. Notably, both the Education Minister and the NUC were absent from the proceedings.
In their joint objection, the third to seventh defendants contended that Nnaji’s ex-parte motion for leave was not filed within three months of the alleged incident, 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. They argued that this failure renders the entire proceedings incompetent.
They further maintained that the substantive motion was improperly filed by “motion on notice” instead of by “originating motion,” as mandated under Order 34 Rule 5(1) of the same Rules.
Challenging the court’s jurisdiction, the defendants also argued that issues relating to student academic records, results, and transcripts fall outside the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court as defined under Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
They added that the plaintiff had not exhausted internal remedies available within the university system and that no violation of his fundamental rights had occurred.
The defendants maintained that no reasonable cause of action existed against the Vice-Chancellor or other university officials, emphasizing that Prof. Ortuanya acted solely in his official capacity throughout the period in question.
The case is expected to continue in January 2026, when the court will determine whether the preliminary objection has merit.
