Ahmadu Tatu V. Estate Of Late Isah Alh. Adamu & Anor (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This Appeal arose from the decision of the Taraba State High Court of Justice sitting in Gembu delivered on the 11th day of December, 2012. Therein, the trial High Court granted some of the reliefs claimed by the Respondents, who were the Plaintiffs.

Briefly put, the facts of the case are that one Isa Alhaji Adamu Mai Yasin bought a parcel of farmland from one Alhaji Sali. Thereafter he developed the land by erecting a building, (which was still uncompleted), thereon. However, while he was still in the process of developing same, he fell ill. After months of seeking medical treatment in Teaching Hospitals in Jos and various other places, he succumbed to the illness and passed on at the Gembu General Hospital.

After his demise, when steps were being taken to distribute his estate to his surviving family, which included a wife and children, in accordance with Islamic Law on inheritance, information came to the 2nd Respondent, (his father), that the Appellant was claiming to have bought the uncompleted building from his deceased son, Isa Alhaji Adamu Mai Yasin. The Appellant did not, however, approach him, (2nd Respondent) or any member of the deceased’s family to so inform them or to make the claim.

When the 2nd Respondent met the Appellant at the market place and the Appellant repeated the claim to him, the 2nd Respondent informed the Ward Head as well as the Village Head of Gembu of the development, and both of them denied knowledge of the sale transaction within their domains. Consequently, in order to clarify matters, the Appellant on behalf of the Estate of his deceased son, filed an action before the Lower Court seeking, inter alia, a declaration of title to the property.

The Respondent denied the claim, and filed a counterclaim also seeking a declaration of title to the same property. He claimed that Isa Alhaji Adamu Mai Yasin (deceased) sold the house to him for One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira (N150,000.00), but died before he could write an agreement in that regard. He however claimed that the late owner handed over to him the original agreement entered into by the deceased and one Alhaji Sali who initially sold the land to him. Both the photocopy and the original of this document were in evidence before the Lower Court as Exhibits A and B.

At the trial, the Respondents/Plaintiffs called seven (7) witnesses in proof of their claim and in defence of the counterclaim. They successfully tendered one document, Exhibit A, in evidence. However, the agreement between the deceased and Alhaji Sali in respect of the land on which the deceased built the property written in Arabic, and its English translation, were tendered but rejected in evidence. The Appellant/Defendant, on his part, called three (3) witnesses in defence of the claim and in proof of the counterclaim, and tendered an agreement purported to have been given him by the deceased which is Exhibit B before the trial Court.

At the close of trial, both learned Counsel addressed the Court on the issues arising as perceived by them. Thereafter, the learned trial Judge framed a sole issue for the determination of the case, and proceeded to give Judgment in favour of the Respondents. Irate and dissatisfied by the decision, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal to this Court on the 6th February, 2013, wherein he complained on eight grounds.

At the hearing of this Appeal on 27-01-14, Mr. D.O. Ovoyenta, learned Counsel for the Appellant, adopted the Appellant’s Brief of argument filed on 26-02-13, and the Reply Brief filed on 22-01-14. He relied on the arguments contained therein as the Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal, and urged the Court to allow the Appeal, set aside the decision of the Lower Court and enter Judgment for the Appellant. Similarly, Mr. Ola Kassim, learned Counsel for the Respondents, adopted the Respondents’ Brief of argument filed on 02-12-13 and deemed filed on 13-01-14, and relied on the arguments therein as the Respondents’ arguments in response. He urged the Court to dismiss the Appeal and affirm the decision of the Lower Court.

The Appellant, in his Brief, submitted four (4) issues for determination by this Court in the resolution of the Appeal; whereas the Respondents distilled one sole issue. Having perused the grounds of Appeal, vis a vis the complaints of the Appellant as encapsulated in his grounds of Appeal, I adopt the issues formulated by the Appellant for a full and comprehensive determination of the issues agitating the parties. With a few readjustments and minor corrections to the syntax, they are set out hereunder as follows:

(i) Whether the trial Court was right when it failed to consider all the issues for determination placed before it by the Appellant.

(ii) Whether the trial High Court was right in determining the suit based on the customary law testified to by Respondents’ witness.

(iii) Whether the trial Court was right when it held that there was no valid sale of the land to the Appellant.

(iv) Whether the trial Court was right when it held that Exhibit B did not confer any interest of the land on the Appellant and thereby refused to accord any weight to it.