Abana Bulama & Anor V. Haruna Alh. Bulama (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.

At the Guyuk Area Court, holden at Gombi in Adamawa State, the Plaintiff sued the Respondents claiming his two houses consisting of 6 and 3 rooms respectively, which he had earlier on entrusted in the 1st Defendant while he proceeded for medical treatment at Dambowa Local Government. The trial Court heard the claim and gave judgment in favour of the Plaintiff by administering oath on him that the Defendants were to pay him the sum of N11,180 compensation for the two houses.

The Plaintiff became aggrieved with that judgment, and appealed to the Gombi Upper Area Court (UAC). The Upper Area Court reviewed the case and altered the amount of the compensation awarded now to be in the sums of N20,000.00 and N15,000.00 for the two houses respectively. The Plaintiff/Appellant was further dissatisfied and appealed to the Adamawa State Sharia Court of Appeal (lower court). After going through the records of proceedings before it on appeal and additional explanations from the parties, the lower Court reversed the decisions of the trial Court and the Upper Area Courts and returned the two houses to the Plaintiff/Appellant. This time around the Defendant/Respondents became aggrieved and appealed to this court on 3 grounds.

The Appellants engaged the services of a counsel. Mr. Umoh. Learned Counsel sought for this Court’s leave and had it consequent upon which one Mr. Felix B. Kwalla was joined in the appeal as an interested party and amended the original notice and grounds of appeal filed on 7/4/96 by incorporating additional grounds. Learned Counsel subsequently had extension of time within which to file his Appellants brief of argument. By order of this court, appellant’s brief of argument was deemed duly filed and served on the 25/11/98. No brief was filed by the Respondent.

On the hearing date, learned Counsel for the appellants adopted and relied on Appellants’ brief of argument. He urged this Court to allow the appeal and restore the decision of the UAC. The Respondent though undefended adopted and relied on his submissions made at the trial upper and the Sharia Courts of Adamawa State as contained in record of appeal. He urged us to dismiss the appeal and affirm the lower courts decision.

The learned Counsel for the appellants formulated four issues:

“1. Whether it was right and proper for the Sharia Court of Appeal to reverse the concurrent findings of the two lower Courts having regards to the circumstances of te case?.

2. Whether it was right and proper for the Sharia Court of Appeal to hold as it did to wit:

“We hold that it is not proper for both the lower Court (sic) to award monetary compensation to the appellant which he objected to?.”

3. Whether it was right and proper for the Sharia Court of Appeal to make an order directing the return of two houses to the Respondent as well as suggesting that the purchaser could institute an action for any claim for development and any expenses incurred in development of the two houses particularly as the purchaser was not a party throughout the proceedings?.
4. Whether it was proper under Sharia Law (sic) for the Court to place absolute reliance on the oath taken by the Respondent when there was other evidence available to the court which the court failed to further evaluate?.”

In his argument on the first issue, learned counsel submitted that both the trial Court and the Upper Area Court were one regarding the reliefs granted to the parties. That the Court’s evaluation of evidence left them concurring on their findings of facts and that it is trite that an appellate court will not disturb concurrent findings of fact by lower courts once supported by sufficient evidence. He cited several authorities in support. He argued further that it was common ground that parties at the lower Court knew that the property had since been sold to a third party who was not then a party to the proceedings and who expended substantial amount of money on the said property thereby radically changing the entire nature of the said property. He submitted that, the Appellant had left the property over twenty years.

On his issue No. 2 learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the lower court had no reason to vary the concurrent findings of the trial and the upper Area Courts.

Learned Counsel submitted on issue No. 3 that where a property had been sold to a bonafide purchaser for value without the Notice of any defect, the only remedy to any adverse claimant after some fundamental changes were effected on the property was a claim for compensation.

On the 4th issue, learned Counsel argued that under the Sharia principles, it is the Defendant that sears to an oath and not the Plaintiff when there is no other evidence available and it was therefore wrong for the lower Court to place reliance on the oath taken by the plaintiff without having recourse to the other evidence available at the trial Court.

I think, this ordinarily, is a simple case but unnecessary complicated by the trial Court. Unlike in the common law principles, the trial Court, in Sharia is entitled to sort out things where confusion creeps into the proceedings. He cannot begin to hear the parties unless he is able to distinguish the plaintiff from the Defendant;

‘Arabic wordings…’