WorldStage– The former Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology, Uche Nnaji, and the defendants, including the University of Nigeria, Nsuka (UNN), on Monday opted for an out-of-court settlement of their dispute.
Nnaji had filed a suit before Justice Hauwa Yilwa of the Federal High Court in Abuja, praying the court to stop the university from releasing his academic records following allegations of certificate forgery.
The ex-minister, the plaintiff in the case, was alleged to have forged his degree and National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) certificates.
The allegations, through a media report, led to his resignation as Nigeria’s minister in 2025.
Justice Yilwa had, on Feb. 26, fixed today for the hearing of his suit.
Upon resumed hearing, Ope Muritala, who appeared for Nnaji, told the court that the case was fixed for hearing of all pending applications.
Muritala, however, said that there was “a new development as parties were exploring an out-of-court settlement.”
He applied for an adjournment to allow parties explore the peaceful resolution of the case.
Lawyers to the Minister of Education, P. C. Ike, and his counterpart for the National Universities Commission (NUC), N. H. Obah told the court they were unaware of the development.
They said they were only hearing about this while in court.
The duo, however, did not oppose Muritala’s application.
On his part, Chidubem Ugwueze, who represented UNN and its officials (3rd to 7th defendants), said that the lead counsel, Chris Uche, SAN, had informed him of the settlement plan.
He said the defendants were not opposed to the reconciliatory move but urged the court to “hear their motion for regularisation” in case the talks failed.
Justice Yilwa declined to take the application.
She said the motion would be considered if the settlement efforts failed.
The judge then adjourned the matter until July 8 for report of settlement.
Nnaji, 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, NUC, UNN and Ortuanya as 1st to 4th respondents.
He also joined the Registrar of UNN; 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.
But in their preliminary objection, the 3rd to 7th defendants, 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 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.
They also argued that it was contrary to the provisions of 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.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.
