Abubakar U. Birma & Ors V. Ahmed Damcida & Anor (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A. 

 This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Kano State in Suit No K/961/2003 delivered by Honorable Justice Wada A. Omar Rano on the 1st of February, 2010. The action in the lower Court was commenced by late Alhaji Ibrahim Damcida against the Appellants, who are the administrators of the Estate of late Alhaji Umar Sanda Birma. The claims of late Alhaji Ibrahim Damcida, as plaintiff, against the Appellants, as defendants, were for:

i. A declaration that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the said two premises known as No. 13E, Bello Road, Kano covered by Certificate of Statutory Right of Occupancy No. COM/RC/82/380 and premises known as No 148, Hotoro GRA, Kano covered by Certificate of Statutory Right of Occupancy No. KN/4999.
ii. A declaration that the said two properties were entrusted by the plaintiff to the deceased, late Alhaji Unamru Sanda Birma, to manage and control and the authority did not vest the title to the two properties unto the deceased.
?iii. A declaration that the authority given to the said deceased in his capacity as the custodian of the

1

said properties is not enough to confer such right on the defendants to apply for letters of administration over the said two properties.
iv. A declaration that the defendants have no right whatsoever to take over or control the said two properties without the prior consent of the plaintiff.
v. A declaration that the Letters of Administration dated the 27th of May, 2003 which was subsequently amended by inserting the name of the fourth defendant without a valid order of Court makes the entire Letters of Administration ineffective and null and void.
vi. An order directing the defendants to render full account of all transactions in respect of the said two properties since they assumed their positions as administrators and administratrix of the said two properties.
vii. In the alternative, an order striking out the names of the two properties from the list of properties to be administered by the defendants as contained in the Letters of Administration issued by the Probate Registrar, Kano High Court dated 27th of May, 2003.
viii. An order directing the defendants not to do anything regarding or pertaining to the said two properties until

2

the final determination of this matter.
ix. An order of injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, associates in whatever designation called from taking any step or further steps in whatsoever manner in respect of the said two properties known as No. 13E, Bello Road, Kano covered by Certificate of Statutory Right of Occupancy No. COM/RC/52/380 and property known as No 148, Hotoro GRA, Kano covered by Certificate of Statutory Right of Occupancy No. KN/4999, pending the determination of this suit.
?
The Appellants counterclaimed and their claims were for:
i. A declaration that the property known and called No. 13E, Bello Road, Kano covered by Certificate of Statutory Right of Occupancy No. COM/RC /82/380 belonged to Alhaji Umaru Sandra Birma (deceased) and formed part of the Estate of the deceased.
ii. A declaration that the property known as No 148, Hotoro GRA, Kano and covered by Certificate of Statutory Right of Occupancy No. KN/4999 belonged to Alhaji Umaru Sandra Birma (deceased) and formed part of his Estate.
iii. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff, his heirs, assigns or representatives from interfering or

3

intermeddling with two properties.
iv. An order compelling the plaintiff to render comprehensive accounts of the sale of Global Ventures Limited.
?
The case of late Alhaji Ibrahim Damcida on the pleadings was that the late father of the Appellants, Alhaji Umaru Sanda Birma, was his friend dating back 1951 and he was a benefactor of the late father of the Appellants and that in 1970, he advised the late father of the Appellants to incorporate the company called Birma General Supplies Ltd (hereinafter called the company) which commenced the business of selling cement, iron rods and furniture and goods were supplied to the company for sale based on the personal guarantee he gave to the suppliers and the company was initially managed by one Alhaji Usman Garba and later by the late father of the Appellants. It was his case that he was the sole financier of the business of the company through loans he raised from his bankers and he used his personal connections to ensure that the company enjoyed good patronage from companies such as Leventis Nigeria Ltd and other major trading companies. It was his case that sometime in 1974, he, in the presence of Alhaji Usman

4

Garba, requested the late father of the Appellants to go, in the company of one Alhaji Mohammed Baffa, to inspect the property at No 13e, Bello Road, Kano and that the late father of the Appellants did as requested and reported to him that the property was being offered for sale by ‘I?. Kahale and Company Ltd for N40,000.00. It was his case that he directed that the property be purchased for him from funds that the late father of the Appellants held in trust for him in an account UBA and that a bank certified cheque was raised by UBA and collected by Alhaji Usman Garba who paid same to the vendor of the property and collected the statutory certificate of occupancy No 3825 which was handed to the late father of the Appellants.
?
It was the case of late Alhaji Ibrahim Damcida that he worked in the Federal Civil Service at this time and held the position of Permanent Secretary in the Ministries of Commerce and Industries, Finance, Trade and Defence at different times and that though the account at UBA was in the name of the late father of the Appellants, the funds therein were made up of the several amounts of money he sent to the late father of the

5

Appellants at different times for warehousing, to the knowledge of Alhaji Usman Garba. It was his case that after the purchase of the properly, he instructed that the main business of the company be moved into the property as its head office and that the stores and the warehouse in the property should be let out and the rents therefrom should be held in trust for him by the late father of the Appellants and that the relationship between him and the late father of the Appellants was based on trust, and was not documented, and that he did not ask for the title documents of the property from the late father of the Appellants until sometime in 2002. It was his case that at a point in time the late father of the Appellants verbally requested permission from him to use the property as collateral to raise a loan from UBA and he granted the request and that the late father of the Appellants used the opportunity to convert the property and made the records of the property at the Ministry of Land and Physical Planning appear as if the property was directly granted to him, the late father of the Appellants, by Government, and he proceeded to state the steps the late

6