Alhaji Amodu Mode v. Alhaji Shehu Suleiman (2024)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

The provenance of this matter is the direct criminal complaint of criminal breach of trust brought by the respondent against the appellant before the Upper Sharia Court III, Gusau, Zamfara State.

The respondents complaint was predicated on the transaction he had with the appellant in respect of 760 sacks of maize which were entrusted to the appellant and taken from Gusau to Kano for sale.

When the appellant was not forthcoming with the proceeds of sale, the respondent brought the complaint and to also recover his money.

When the matter came up before the trial Upper Sharia Court, Gusau, the learned counsel for the appellant raised an objection on the territorial jurisdiction of the court to entertain the complaint on the ground that no part of the offence complained the jurisdiction of the court.

After the trial Upper Sharia Court adjourned to rule on the objection, the parties opted to pursue an amicable resolution of the matter, and a settlement was reached which the parties communicated to the court with the appellant accepting that he was owing the respondent and undertaking to pay in instalments.

The appellant failed to keep his undertaking, and his learned counsel then walked back on the settlement by stating that the appellant did not undertake to pay the respondent in instalments. He urged the trial Upper Sharia Court to rule on the objection raised on its jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

In its ruling, the trial Upper Sharia Court upheld the efficacy of the settlement reached by the parties and it ordered the appellant to abide by the terms of the settlement, which did not contradict the Islamic Sharia.

The court duly informed the parties of their right to appeal against the decision. There was no appeal against the decision within the time to appeal.

After the effluxion of the time to appeal, the appellant filed an application before the High Court of Zamfara State in suit No. ZMS/GS/M/372/2023: Alh. Amodu Mode v. Alh. Shehu Suleiman on 9th November, 2023, wherein he prayed for the following reliefs:

1. An order extending time within which the applicant may apply for leave to appeal out of time against the judgment of the Upper Sharia Court III, Gusau in suit No. USC/111/CR/03/2023 delivered on the 17th day of May, 2023.
2. An order granting leave to the applicant to appeal against the judgment of the Upper Sharia Court III, Gusau in suit No. USC/111/CR/03/2023 delivered on the 17/5/2023.
3. An order enlarging the time within which the applicant may file his notice and grounds of appeal against the judgment of the Upper Sharia Court III, Gusau in suit No. USC/111/CR/03/2023.
4. An order deeming the proposed notice and grounds of appeal attached hereto as exhibit A and separately filed as having been properly filed and served the necessary filing fees having been paid.

The respondent opposed the application and the lower court after considering the application dismissed the same in a considered ruling which was delivered on 23rd January, 2024.

The appellant was dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court, and, with the leave of the lower court, he appealed against the same by notice of appeal filed on 5th February, 2024. The ruling of the lower court is at pages 93 – 96 of the records of appeal, while the notice of appeal is at pages 97 – 99 of the records of appeal. The records of appeal were compiled and transmitted on 7th March, 2024 and the parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. At the hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the parties urged the court to uphold their respective submissions in the determination of the appeal.

The appellant filed his brief of argument on 27th March, 2024, and he distilled a sole issue for determination in the appeal, namely:

Whether from the facts and circumstances of this case and in particular, the grounds of appeal placed before the court below, the court below exercised its discretion judicially and judiciously, in refusing the appellants application (culled from grounds 1 and 2 of the grounds of appeal).