Haladu Dadi V. Idi Garba (1995)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MOHAMMED, J.S.C. 

On 25th October, 1982, the Upper Area Court Pankshin, Plateau State, sitting at Pankshin, delivered a judgment in respect of an appeal brought before it by Haladu Dadi, the appellant in this appeal, against the decision of Grade I, Civil Area Court, Kanam Dengi. The subject matter in dispute was a house which Idi Garba, the respondent, in this appeal, claimed to belong to his late father. Idi Garba sued Haladu Dadi for the recovery of the said house.

In its judgment, the Upper Area Court Pankshin found that the lower court did not consider some vital issues during the proceedings before it. It suggested that one Jibir Musa who was alleged to have sold the house to the appellant be joined as a party in the suit. Thereafter the Upper Area Court ordered for a retrial of the action before the same court.

The retrial was concluded without Jibir Musa being made a party. He was however called as a witness for the defence. The evidence before the trial Civil Area Court, in a nutshell is in the following narrative:

The house in dispute was originally the property of the grandfather of the respondent. On the grandfather’s death, his father, Garba Mai-Goge, took possession of the house. When Kanam Local Government sent one Shehu as the first District Head of Kam, he was accommodated in the house of the respondent’s father. Respondent’s father lived with the new District Head in the same house for nine years.

After Shehu’s death, another District Head, Ubandoma Shagayya succeeded him. He too, lived in the disputed house until his death. The most vital evidence for the respondent in this case was given by Sule Masoyi who told the trial court that he and the respondent’s father lived in the same house with both the first District Head, Shehu, and Ubandoma Shagayya. It was during Shagayya’s reign that the local Community built a “Zaure” (a round hut at the frontage of the house) for their chief. The people of Gagai, as was customary in those days, also through communal effort, built three rooms for the use of their District Head. All these were done in the presence and during the life-time of the father of the respondent.

When Ubandoma Shagayya died, the appellant was made the new District Head. He did not take up residence in the house. He however demolished the three rooms built by Shagayya and erected six rooms in their place. The appellant thereafter gave one Banna Gar permission to stay in the house for one year. When Banna Gar left, the appellant sold the house away.

The defence of the appellant was that he bought the house from one Jibir Musa who was the son of Ubandoma Shagayya and that the respondent witnessed and signed the purchase agreement. What is most damaging evidence against the appellant was when Jibir Musa gave evidence for the defence and said:

“After my father’s death, I called the plaintiff and gave him back his father’s house since it was given to my father to stay free and since both his father and my father have died, I don’t need to keep the house, after sometimes the plaintiff came and told me that the defendant has packed into the house and demolished the Zaure (front room) after he (the defendant) was made the District Head of the area without his plaintiff (sic) consent…”

Later at the end of the proceedings, in a reply to a statement made by the appellant on the evidence of sale, Jibir Musa now said:

“………….. but what I know is that the house actually belongs to the plaintiff’s father but the plaintiff’s father sold the house to my father Shagayya though nobody witness (sic) the purchase between my father and the plaintiff’s father because they were friends…………………………”

The trial Civil Area Court, quite rightly, rejected Jibir’s testimony and, in a considered judgment, found in favour of the respondent. It therefore declared that the disputed house belonged to late Garba, the father of the respondent, and that only late Garba’s children have the right to claim possession of it.

The appellant appealed against the Area Court’s decision to the Customary Court of Appeal, Plateau State. The customary Court after considering the grounds filed in support of the appeal, reversed the decision of the trial area court and declared ownership of the house in dispute in favour of the appellant.

Dissatisfied with that decision, the respondent went before the Court of Appeal, Jos Division, on three grounds of appeal. In a considered judgment the Court of Appeal, whose lead judgment was written by Akanbi, J.C.A., (as he then was), reversed the decision of the Customary Court of Appeal and restored the