Alh. Amadu Kankia Bello & Ors V. Alh. Ma’aruf Umar Sanda & Ors (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

By the pleadings of the Appellants filed before the High Court of Katsina State in suit No. KTH/46/2007 on 9/4/2008, they sought the following reliefs:

“a. A declaration that the house lying and situated at Unguwar Madawaki Katsina belongs to the heirs of late Kankia Bello.

b. A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, privies, assigns or any body from raising any claim over the house.

c. General damages”.

Pleadings were settled in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules of High Court of Katsina State, after which the matter proceeded to trial with the Appellants calling five witnesses, while eight were called by the Respondents. After hearing the evidence and evaluating the same, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the Appellants failed to prove their case and consequently dismissed their claims. The Appellants, as the Plaintiffs, appeared to have been so outraged at the said decision that, they, within the period prescribed, filed this appeal.

The questions raised for the resolution of this Court in the Appellants’ Brief of Argument are in like manner:

” 1 . Whether the Appellants have proved their case before the lower Court.

2. Whether the lower Court is right when it used minutes of meeting, that is Exhibits C and C 1 as a basis for its judgment.
3. Whether the lower Court is right when it failed to consider Exhibits (a) and (a)(1) before passing its decision.
4. Whether the lower Court was right to hold that “… as the minutes of meeting contained in Exhibits C, and C I having been signed the Magaju Garin Katsina, and, the 1st Plaintiff was at the meeting and he fails to produce Exhibits A and A1 at the said meeting goes to show that the production of Exhibit A and Al before this Court is suspect … ”

The Respondents, rather, presented one issue for consideration of this Court, that is to say; “whether having regards to the evidence before the Court as well as the Plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim, they are entitled to the reliefs claimed”.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants, Ahmed Danbaba Esq; submitted that by the evidence adduced at the trial Court, it was shown how the land in question belonged to late Mallam Yero (former Emir of Katsina), and how the house devolved on them from their late father Kankia Bello. He further referred to Exhibits A and A1 and the evidence of P.W.4 who explained how Exhibit A was handed over to him by his elder brother, Alhaji Maccido, and further placing reliance on the case of Usman vs. K.S.H.A. (2007) 11 NWLR Part 1044 p. 148 at 198 paras E-F and section 124 of the Evidence Act Cap E14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, Counsel stressed that the burden placed on the Appellants was on the balance of probability or on the preponderance of evidence, and since the document, i.e. Exhibit A was over 20 years and produced from proper custody, it ought to have been the basis of the lower Court’s judgment. He recounted the five ways long established for proving title or ownership of a land as was restated in Lawson vs. Ajibulu (1997) 65 CNJ p. I at 13 paras 15-25.

Counsel further stressed that the evidence of the Appellants that their late father, Kankia Bello lived and died in the house and that the 1st Appellant was put in possession by their late father, Kankia Bello was admitted by D.W.1, D.W.2, D.W.3, D.W.4 and D.W.8 and then urged that the first issue be resolved in favour of the Appellants.

With regard to issue No. 2, learned Counsel emphatically stated that no evidence of any kind was adduced before the lower Court either through the Respondents or D.W.6 via whom Exhibits C and C1 (minutes of meeting) were tendered tending to show that any meeting of any sort was held between the Respondents and the 1st Appellant, and, at which, minutes were recorded and also authenticated by the 1st Appellant. He, therefore, argued that the trial Court was in serious error when it hinged its decision on the said minutes of meeting and failed or refused to consider the material evidence presented by the Appellants before it.

Turning to issue No. 3, Counsel reiterated his argument in respect of issue No. 1 and then urged that the appeal be decided in favour of the Appellants.

Arguing in respect of issue No. 4, learned Counsel expressed that the document pleaded by the Respondents was an agreement reached in 2002 between the parties, but, not minutes of any meeting. He stated in categorical terms, that no minutes of any meeting was pleaded by the Respondent, yet, the trial Court relied on the unpleaded document to form its decision. Learned Counsel made references to Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, p. 1018 and Osborne’s Concise Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, by Roger Bird p. 21 where the phrases or terms; ‘minutes of meeting’ and ‘agreement’ were defined and then asserted that the two are distinct and different to each other and, as such, could not have been mistaken for one another. He argued it was wrong for the trial Court to have held that Exhibits C and C1 were genuine; having been signed by Magaju Garin Katsina and the 1st Plaintiff who was in attendance. He referred to Ladipo vs. Ajani (1997) 8 NWLR Part 517 p.356 at 365 para. B and submitted that evidence of facts not pleaded goes to no issue as the Parties are bound by their Pleadings.