Alhaji Ahmadu Jakarawa V. Sani Alh. Saini & Ors. (2002)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD J.C.A.

The direct complaint of the 1st plaintiff at the Kumo Upper Area Court (trial Court), formerly of Bauchi State is quoted as below:

“I Alhaji Ahmadu Jakarawa and 10 others, hereby instituted an action against Sani Alhaji Saini, Modibbo Alh. Saini and Babayo Alhaji Saini.

We are praying the court to receive our house and 26 farmlands from the custody of the respondents and to be handed (it) to us. The house and the farmlands in question are the ownership of our father who is now deceased. After his death, we could not share the inheritance amongst us. We left the said house and the 26 farmlands in the custody of Alhaji Sani, the father of Sani, Modibbo and Babayo. Alhaji Sani is now dead, so, we would like the court to receive the said house and the 26 farmlands from the custody of the respondents and to be handed to us, we should like the court to share the property of our late father Jauro Yakubu amongst us.”

(underlining supplied by me).

After some interrogations by the court including the supply of the names of the heirs to the deceased, the trial court asked the defendants to reply to the allegation. All the defendants denied the claim and stated that the house and the farmlands belong to their deceased father. They counter-claimed that their father acquired them by purchasing some and clearing some. Evidence was taken by the trial court from both sides. The trial court also paid a visit to the Locus inquo. In its judgment, the trial court confirmed title of six farmlands to the 1st respondent and the remaining 20 farmlands and the house to late Jauro Yakubu.

Dissatisfied with the trial court’s judgment, the respondents appealed to the Bauchi State Sharia Court of Appeal (lower court). After examining the grounds of appeal filed and the additional statements by the parties, the lower court re-heard the appeal before it by taking fresh evidence under section 7 of the Sharia Court of Appeal Rules Cap 122 of 1963 Laws of Northern Nigeria. It set aside the decision of the trial; court and substituted it with its own decision in the following terms:

“We allow the appeal of Sani and we set aside the decision of the Upper Area Court, the farm which Alh. Ahmadu sold to Alhaji Magaji at the cost of N70, 000.00 the bargain, no longer exist, the farm belongs to Jauro Saini, so also the house, and the rest of the farms in possession of the masses, they will continue be in their possession, (sic) on the conditions given to them, that if a person migrated he leave it. (sic)”

Dissatisfied with the above decision, the respondents as appellants’ herein, appealed to this court.

In this Court, parties complied with the provision of Order 6 Rules 2 & 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 1981 (as amended) by filing their respective briefs of argument. On the hearing date, learned counsel for the appellant adopted and relied on his brief. He had nothing more to add. He urged us to allow the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondents adopted his brief and urged us to dismiss the appeal.

In his brief of argument, learned counsel for the appellant formulated the following issues:

“(1) Whether the Sharia Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to entertain the Respondents appeal when the dispute between the parties was not a matter involving Islamic personal law.

(ii) Whether the Sharia Court of Appeal was right when it awarded the 26 farmlands to the respondents when their claim was limited to only 17 out of the 26 farmlands in the appellant’s possession.”

In their joint respondents’ brief, the respondents formulated 2 issues as follows: