Sirajo Muhammad v. Alh. Faruku Suleiman (2024)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

This is an appeal against the decision of the Sokoto State High Court, Sokoto Judicial Division in suit No. SS/CS/26/2021 delivered on 3rd April, 2023 whereupon the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed.

The plaintiff commenced suit No. SS/CS/26/2021 praying for declaratory and injunctive reliefs against the defendant as follows:

a. A declaration that the parcel of land located in Gidan Fulani Area, Arkilla, Sokoto; approximately measuring 40 x 24 feet and directly situated at the frontage and entrance of the house of the plaintiff to the south, and bounded to the north, with the house of the defendant and to the east road and west with a mosque respectively is a designated access road, in which the plaintiff has unhindered right of easement.

b. A declaration that the parcel of land located in Gidan Fulani Area, Arkilla, Sokoto; approximately measuring 40 x2 4 feet and directly situated at the frontage and entrance of the house of the plaintiff to the south, and bounded to the north, with the house of the defendant and to the east road and west with a mosque respectively; being a designated access road, the defendant cannot validly and legitimately claim ownership of it at the detriment of the plaintiff’s right of easement.

c. A declaration that the fence and structures erected by the defendant at the disputed land located in Gidan Fulani Area, Arkilla, Sokoto; approximately measuring 40 x 24 feet and directly situated at the frontage and entrance of the house of the plaintiff to the south, and bounded to the north, with the house of the defendant and to the east road and west with a mosque are illegal structures.

d. An order for the removal of the fence, all structures and buildings erected at the disputed land located in Gidan Fulani Area, Arkilla, Sokoto; approximately measuring 40 x 24 feet and directly situated at the frontage and entrance of the house of the plaintiff to the south, and bounded to the north, with the house of the defendant and to the east road and west with a mosque.

e. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant either by himself, or through his privies, agents, servants, representatives, whatsoever, from claiming title, rights, interest or doing any other act whatsoever in the disputed land, located in Gidan Fulani Area, Arkilla, Sokoto; approximately measuring 40 x 24 feet and directly situated at the frontage and entrance of the house of the plaintiff to the south, and bounded to the north, with the house of the defendant and to the east road and west with a mosque.

f. General damages against the defendant for trespass, inconvenience and denial of the plaintiff to enjoy his right of easement of the disputed land.

g. Cost of this action.

h. Such other orders as the court may deem fit to make.

The defendant denied the plaintiff’s claim and urged the lower court to dismiss the suit for being frivolous, unmeritorious and an abuse of court process.

Issues were joined by the parties wherein the matter proceeded to trial in which oral and documentary evidence were led by the plaintiff. At the close of the plaintiff’s case and subsequent to the court visiting the locus in quo, counsel to the defendant indicated that he was making a no-case submission. In a considered ruling delivered on 3rd April, 2020, learned trial Judge at page 125 of the record found as follows:

“Flowing from the above, there is no any credible evidence left on the side of the plaintiff to convince this court call on the defendant to enter his defence.