Umaru Galadima & Ors V. Mohammadu Mashayabo (1994)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ABDULLAHI, J.C.A. 

The respondent in this appeal instituted an action against the appellants at an Area Court in Argungu, Kebbi State, then in Sokoto State claiming damages arising from the destruction of his farm crops by cattle of the appellants.

The Area Court heard the case, received evidence of two expert witnesses as to the value of the farm crops destroyed. The Area Court Judge also visited the farm to see things for himself.

The appellants, then defendants, admitted that their cattle entered the respondent’s farm and destroyed the farm crops, but asserted that the farmland was a grazing reserve declared by the government and that the respondent planted his crops on the farm land in contravention of the government directives.

At the end of the trial, the Area Court found that the respondent had made a case and entered judgment in his favour in the sum of N3, 600.00.

The appellants were aggrieved with the judgment of the Area Court and they appealed to the High Court sitting at Birnin Kebbi in its appellate jurisdiction.

The High Court heard the appeal and dismissed it as lacking in merit and affirmed the decision of the Area Court.

The appellants were still not satisfied, they appealed to this court.

The appellants filed three grounds of appeal which read as follows:-

“1. The decision of the High Court is erroneous in law, in that it confirms the judgment of the Area Court grade one Argungu which court had no jurisdiction to try the claim, the subject matter of this appeal. giving regard to sections 39(1)(a) and (b) of the Land Use Act, No.6 of 1978.

PARTICULARS

i. The land in dispute is situated within a graze reserve declared Public Lands by the Sokoto State Government.

ii. By virtue of Section 39(1)(a) and (b) of the Land Use Decree 1978, only the High Court of Sokoto State has original jurisdiction to try the case.

2. The decision of the High Court sitting in its appellate jurisdiction at Birnin Kebbi is erroneous in law in that it confirms the decision of the learned trial Judge which was based mainly on oral evidence of two purported experts in violation of Rule 6 of the Sakata State Area Courts (Civil Procedure) (Amendment) Rules, 1980.

PARTICULARS