Alhaji Baban Sule V. Gajere Hamidu (1988)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AIKAWA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court Kaduna, sitting in its appellate jurisdiction setting aside the decision of the Upper Area Court, Zaria, and affirming the decision of trial Markarfi Area Court.

In the said trial at Markarfi Area Court, the respondent herein claimed against the appellant, the return of his irrigation plot which he pledged to the appellant for a loan of N40.00. The appellant admitted that the said irrigation plot belonged to the respondent who later sold it to him some 7 years ago at the cost of N40.00, the receipt of which amount was acknowledged by the respondent in the sale agreement which was prepared by Sarkin Kaura, a copy of which was given to him. Although the trial Judge had ascertained that the onus of proof of the sale rests on the appellant, he however, called upon the respondent to prove his title to the said plot. He therefore called three witnesses, among them, only PW1 gave evidence supporting that the said irrigation plot was pledged for a loan of N40.00 to the appellant. The two other respondent’s witnesses testified that they knew the said irrigation plot to have belonged to the respondent but did not know whether or not the transaction between the parties was a sale or a pledge. At this stage, the respondent closed his case.

The appellant indicated his intention to call five witnesses to prove that the said irrigation plot was sold to him. The witnesses were named as follows:

(1) Sarkin Kaura

(2) Mal. Sani Magetakarda

(3) Alhaji Yusufu

(4) Alhaji Aruwa

(5) Liman M. Ali

The first witness was Sarkin Kaura who deposed that he knew nothing about the irrigation plot in question because it was not within his area of authority; that he neither wrote the agreement between the parties nor did he instruct any person to prepare it on his behalf. That he did not sign it and therefore did not know anything about the said agreement.

The second appellant’s witness, Mallam Sani Magatakarda, in his evidence told the court that he knew nothing about the transaction and also knew nothing about the agreement between the parties. He did not know who wrote the letter (i.e. the agreement) and knew nothing about it.

The third appellant’s witness, Alhaji Yusufu Sule, said in his evidence that he could remember about 10 years ago, Baban Sule (i.e. the appellant) invited him to come and witness a transaction in respect of an irrigation plot he intended to buy. He bought it at the cost of N46.00 from the respondent/plaintiff. That he was suspecting that Mallam Sani (DW2) wrote the letter of agreement.

The respondent impeached the evidence of this witness on the ground that he was a consanguineous brother to the appellant.

The fourth witness said in his evidence that Baban Sule (appellant) was marrying his daughter; that about 10 years ago, the respondent/plaintiff invited him to see his irrigation plot which he later sold to the appellant at the cost of N46, 00. When the transaction was completed, an agreement thereof was prepared by Mallam Sani (DW2). That’s all.