Alhaji Sani Mai Walda V. Alhaji Sani Maizare (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

UMOREN, J.C.A.

This appeal is against the decision of M. N. Abdullahi J. sitting in Kano in the Kano Judicial Division dated 30th September, 1998 in Suit No. K/162/98 dismissing the action of the appellant herein who was the plaintiff in that court against the respondent herein.

The facts of the case are straightforward. It is common ground that in March, 1998 the plaintiff in the Court below instituted an action against the defendants in that court. The claim before the Lower Court, which began the present action on appeal was as set out below:-

The plaintiff’s claim is for:-

(a) An order of this Honourable court perpetually restraining the defendants and their agents from further claiming the plot (in dispute).

(b)The sum of N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) as general damages.

(c) Cost of instituting and prosecuting this action.

The plaintiff as well as the defendant in that court were not represented by counsel and so no pleadings were filed. The trial proceeded without pleadings, the learned trial Judge relying on oral evidence given by the parties and their witnesses.

The appellant’s case was that sometime or about 1983, he bought a piece of land lying and situate at Dorayi Quarters in Kano from one Lawan Isyaku through a dealer, M. Yahaya at the cost of N300.00 in the presence of witnesses. The transaction was duly reduced into writing and the appellant sought and obtained the confirmation and approval of the Ward Head.

Later on, with the approval of the Ward Head he bought another piece or parcel of land adjoining the first one from the rear, from one Alhaji Salisu Ali at the cost of N300.00. This transaction was also documented and duly attested to by witnesses.

The sale document dated 15/2/92 was admitted as Exhibit 1. Evidence of change of ownership was admitted as Exhibit 2. The receipts the appellant received in the course of processing were Exhibits 3 – 3C. receipts of expenditure on the plots were Exhibits 4 and 4A.

The defendant/Respondent’s case was that the disputed plot was in his farmland which he bought from the vendor, one Alhaji Lawal. The shop, the subject-matter of this appeal is on the Respondent’s plot. After hearing the parties and their respective witnesses, the learned trial Judge on 30/9/98 delivered his judgment in which he held at page 18 lines 14- 18 of the record as follows:-

“In the circumstance, I am satisfied that the disputed plot where the plaintiff has built shops belongs to the 1st defendant.

I accordingly hereby dismiss the case of the plaintiff as it lacks merit. The disputed land where the plaintiff has built shops does not belong to him Alhaji Mai Walda.”