Alhaji Hashimu Garba Matari & Ors V. Ahmadu Dangaladima & Anor (1993)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
KARIBI-WHYTE, J.S.C.
On the 13th February 1990, the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division in an unanimous judgment read by Okay Achike, J.C.A. for which Uthman Mohammed, and Ogundere J.C.A. concurred, dismissed the appeal of the appellants against the judgment of the High Court, Kaduna in its appellate jurisdiction, this appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal. It will be of considerable assistance in the elucidation of the real issue in this appeal to trace the genesis of this litigation even if very briefly from the court of trial.
One Mallam Maude, the predecessor of the respondents, brought an action as plaintiff against the six appellants, as defendants in the Area Court Soba, for the return of his father’s farmland situate at Matari in the Soba District of the then Zaria Local Government Area. Mallam Maude claimed that the disputed land was entrusted to Sarkin Matari. He also alleged that the farms were given on loan to the appellants for which they paid tribute as consideration. Defendants were not sued in a representative capacity. They were sued individually, although the case was heard together.
The case was however heard in the Zaria City Area Court, not in the Soba Area Court. The Zaria City Area Court granted the reliefs sought. Defendant dissatisfied appealed to the Upper Area Court, Zaria. On the 10th October, 1982, the Upper Area Court affirmed the judgment of the Zaria City Area Court. Still dissatisfied with the judgment of the Upper Area Court. Zaria, appellants appealed to the High Court, Kaduna. Again, the High Court of Kaduna, dismissed the appeal: but varied the consequential orders made by the Court of first instance, Appellants were still dissatisfied. They appealed to the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division. For the first time in the Court of Appeal, appellants raised the issue of the jurisdiction of the Zaria City Area Court to hear and determine the subject matter of the action, the Court of Appeal again dismissed the appeal. The six appellants have now appealed to this Court. Appellants have hitherto suffered a litany of unsuccessful appeals to appellate Courts.
Appellants filed four identical grounds of appeal, which are as follows”
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
- ERROR IN LAW
The Court of Appeal erred in Law by its refusal to hold that the decisions of the Kaduna State High Court which affirmed the judgments of the appeal Upper Area Court Zaria and the Zaria City Area Court No. 1 were null and void when it was crystal clear that the Area Courts (Jurisdiction Notice) 1977 made pursuant to Section 3 of the Area Courts Law 1967 had ousted the jurisdiction of the said Zaria City Area Court No.1.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
(i) By holding that the production of the warrant establishing the Zaria City Area Court No.1 was a sine qua non to the success of the ground on jurisdiction the Court of Appeal was in error as this finding was not in consonance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Area Courts Law 1967.
(ii) The Court of Appeal failed to properly interpret the provisions of Section 3 and 18 of the Area Courts Law 1967.
(iii) The fact that the word ‘warrant’ is replicated in almost all the subsections of section 3 of the Area Courts Law does not exclude the overriding application of Section 3(6) of the Area Courts Law 1967 which is the only mode of notifying the whole world as to the jurisdiction of every Area Court in Kaduna State.
(iv) The Area Courts (Jurisdiction Notice) 1977 though a subsidiary legislation is not in conflict with Sections 3 and 18 of the Area Courts Law 1967 as held by Court of Appeal but is in perfect consonance with the said Sections 3 and 18 if read as a whole.
(v) Consequently the production of the warrant of the trial court had no place in law and was therefore not relevant or vital to the success of the ground of appeal.
- ERROR IN LAW
The Court of Appeal erred in Law when it failed to uphold learned appellants counsel’s submissions that the proceedings of the Court of first instance were bedevilled with fundamental infractions of the appellants right to fair hearing and the whole proceeding were riddled with serious procedural errors which cumulatively led to a miscarriage of justice.
Leave a Reply