Alh. Sabitu Abdullahi Zuntu V. Alh. Muhammed Sambo Suleiman Zuntu (2001)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

VICTOR AIMEPOMO OYELEYE OMAGE, J.C.A.

In the court below the Respondent in this appeal sued the Appellant by a writ of summons filed in the High Court Kaduna, Kaduna State, and claimed the following reliefs:

(a) An order that the defendant should render account of the proceed of the Land form in file No. KD. 1119 opened in July, 1990 in the plaintiffs name at Federal Capital Development Authority (Land Department) Garki Abuja.

(b) An order that the defendant should surrender the title documents in respect of land file No KD. 1119 opened in the name of the plaintiff sometime in July, 1990 at the Federal Capital Development Authority Land Department Garki Abuja.”

At the hearing of the claim in the court below the Respondent called three witnesses, while the appellant called two witnesses to deny the plaintiff’s claim, the court ruled in favour of the Respondent in the court below, the judgment in the said court is coram Donli J. The following was the subject of appeal in this court.

(a) That the plaintiffs claim was not for a declaration of title but for a return of title document.

(b) That the title deed on the said land was in the name of the plaintiff.

(c) That the said title deed should by order of court be returned by the defendant to the plaintiff.

The judgment was delivered on 19/6/99. On 5/10/99 upon an application by the judgment debtor the defendant, the learned trial judge ordered a stay of the judgment. The defendant was aggrieved by the judgment and filed one ground of appeal from which the Appellant formulated only one issue viz:

“Whether the lower court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.”

The Respondent adopted the same issue in his brief filed by order of court made on 28/11/00. The appellants brief was filed on 20/12/99.

In his submission that the learned trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case the appellant deposed at the trial that he lives and resides in Minna Niger State and at Abuja with his family, that he has a house in Kaduna, but that he does not reside there. That the transaction took place in Abuja outside the jurisdiction of the lower court. That the subject matter of the suit that is the land. situates in Garki Abuja, outside the jurisdiction of the court below. Appellant submitted that the court below failed to rule on the issue of jurisdiction when it was raised at the hearing, however jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. He said an issue of jurisdiction must be determined by the court once raised, since jurisdiction cannot be acquired by consent of the parties.

In his submission, in his brief the respondent adopted the issue of jurisdiction formulated by the Appellant, and deposed that the lower court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter because the entire transaction in the matter took place in Kaduna.

He said the appellant and the respondent have been in communication with each other in Kaduna and that it was in Kaduna that the defendant/appellant refused to return to the Respondent the said title deeds and turned down the demand for account on the proceeds thereof. Respondent submitted that it is the plaintiff’s claim at the trial, which determines the jurisdiction of the court. UNIVERSITY OF CALABAR vs. EPHRAIM (1993) NWLR (Pt.271) 551 at 562. He said the issue before the court is not one of a declaration of title over a plot of land at Abuja and that the evidence of PW1, PW2, DW1 and DW2, show that the cause of action arose in Kaduna within the jurisdiction of the lower court. He urged the court to dismiss the appeal.