Sule Koya Fulani V. Mohammed Mani Rafawa & Ors (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Kano State High Court in Suit No K/51/1998 delivered by Honorable Justice Umaru Mohammed Alkali (now deceased) on the 15th of June, 2004. The claims of the Appellant, as plaintiff, in the suit were for:

i. A declaration that the Plaintiff is the rightful and legal owner of the said farmland at Koya Village in Gwarzo Local Government Area of Kano State.

ii. A declaration that the Defendants whether by themselves or their servants, agents and/or privies are not entitled to enter of use the said farmland or any part thereof.

iii. A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants whether by themselves or their servants, agents and/or privies or otherwise from entering, using or tampering with the said piece of land or any part thereof in any manner.

iv. The sum of N80,000.00 being special damages for the Plaintiffs cash crops burnt down by the Defendants.

v. The sum of N100,000.00 being general damages for trespass over the Plaintiffs farmland by the Defendants.

Pleadings were exchanged between the parties and the matter went to trial. In a judgment delivered on the 15th of June, 2004, the claims of the Appellant were dismissed by the lower Court. The Appellant was dissatisfied with the decision and he filed a notice of appeal dated the 23rd of August, 2004 against the judgment. The notice of appeal consisted of four grounds of appeal.

The Appellant sought for and obtained the order of this Court extending the time to seek leave as well as leave to compile and transmit the records of appeal in this matter and the records of appeal compiled and transmitted by him were deemed proper on the 27th of March, 2012. In compliance with the Rules of this Court, the Appellant filed a brief of arguments dated the 296 of March, 2012 on the 30th of March, 2012 and it consisted of seven pages. The Respondents filed a brief of arguments consisting of fourteen pages and dated the 19th of April, 2012 in response. At the hearing of the appeal on the 14th of January, 2013, Counsel to the Appellant and Counsel to the Respondents relied on and adopted their respective briefs of arguments.

In his brief of arguments, Counsel to the Appellant distilled two issues for determination from the four grounds of appeal and these were:

i. Whether or not the learned Trial Judge did not infringe upon the Plaintiffs right of fair hearing when he suddenly stopped the Plaintiffs Counsel from further cross examining a witness and unilaterally refused the Plaintiff the right of address (distilled from Ground One of the Notice of Appeal).

ii. Whether or not, in the light of the evidence before the Court, the decision of the learned Trial Judge is not perverse (distilled from Grounds Two to Four of the Notice of Appeal).

Counsel to the Respondents agreed, in principle, with the two issues formulated by the Appellant’s Counsel but suggested a reformulation of the first issue for determination thus:

i. Whether the learned Trial Judge did infringe upon the Plaintiff’s right to fair hearing when he stopped the Plaintiff’s Counsel from further cross examining a witness and adjourned the matter for judgment without hearing the addresses of the Parties.