Mohammed Dan Bello Nahuche V. Bello Mohammed Nahuche & Anor (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This judgment is in respect of an appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of justice Zamfara State sitting at Gusau and delivered on the 20-3-2014 by BELLO SHINKAFI, J wherein the learned trial Court dismissed the claims of the Appellant as Plaintiff on the grounds that the action was statute barred and went on to grant the 1st Respondent’s Counter claim.

By a writ of summons filed on the 17-11-2003 the Appellant as Plaintiff claimed against the Respondents Sundry declaratory and injunctive reliefs as endorsed at Paragraphs 45 (I-X) of the Appellants Amended Statement of Claims (see pages 114 to 118 of the Records).

Upon being served with the Appellant’s originating processes the 1st and 2nd Respondents entered conditional appearances to the suit. The 1st Respondent next joined issues with the Plaintiff through the filing into Court, a Statement of Defense and counter claim and so did the 2nd Respondent who only filed a Statement of Defense. On the 29-11-2007, the Appellant filed an Amended Defense to 1st Respondent’s Statement of Defense and Counter-claim. A

1

synopsis of the Appellant’s contention at the lower Court showed that he had grouses on the following issues:

(1) That Dangaisha Ruling house as the founder of Nahuche is the only Ruling House as far the geographical entity known as Nahuche is concerned ? Paragraph 20 of the Amended Statement of Claim.

(2) That the 1st Respondent ascended the throne, power, authority, management and control of the area known as Nahuche Ubandawaki unlawfully. See Paragraphs 5 and 7 of the Amended Statement of Claim.

(3) That the Appellant who is a member of the Dangaisha family was sidelined and deprived of his lawful inheritance through the fraudulent manipulation of the traditions, customs and history of Nahuche town and the traditional institution of the Emirate system ? Paragraph 5 of the Amended Statement of Claim.

(4) That “Nahuche Ubandawaki”, a title vested and conferred on the 1st Respondent was a name and title historically not known in describing traditional institutions and that the name traditionally known was “Nahuche Marafa” in respect of which the 1st Respondent was never associated by custom, tradition, history and hereditary

2

genealogy.

(5) That on the basis of the foregoing issues the 1st Respondent and all the descendants of the “Abdun Barade” on the lineage of whom the 1st Respondent claims title and entitlement to the throne cannot legally, legitimately and lawfully rise to the position of Ruler-ship, authority, power or in any way have control or exercise any administrative control over Nahuche town as a whole or in any part thereof.

After the close of pleadings, hearing commenced on the 16-6-2005; the Appellant as Plaintiff called a total of ten (10) witnesses who testified as the PW1 to PW10. On the part of the 1st and 2nd Respondents as Defendants in that order, only two witnesses were called who testified as DW1 and DW2. At the conclusion of hearing, learned Counsel for the parties addressed Court in extenso citing a plethora of decided cases. Thereafter, the learned trial Court, at pages 497 to 543 of the printed records, delivered a considered judgment. The Court said at page 541 of the Records thus: