Alhaji Fatihu Idris & Ors v. Alhaji Gali Idris (2025)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

The instant appeal is consequent upon the judgment of the Court of Appeal, holden at Kaduna, delivered on February 17, 2017 in appeal No. CA/K/263/S/2012.

By the said judgment the court below, coram Yahaya, Oredola and Abdullahi, JJCA, dismissed the appellant’s appeal and affirmed the decision of the Sharia Court of Appeal/ Kano State in appeal No. KN/NT/125/2012.

Background facts

The genesis of the circumstances surrounding the appeal could be traced to September 15, 2010. That was the day the 1st appellant filed the suit in a representative capacity, thereby praying the trial court to distribute the estate of his late father, Alhaji Idris Usman to the respective heirs.

The 1st appellant stated his claim thus:

“Our claim is that we want the court to share the estate of Late Alhaji Idris, who died about one year ago, he left no parents but he left children 4 males and 8 females and house wife (widow), he left inheritable properties which they wanted the court to share for them. The properties are:

(1) House No. 52A Fagge Ta Kudu, Kwari market, Fagge Local Government

(2) House No. 81 Lying at Chedi Quarters Kano Municipal Local Government.

(3) House No. 343 Sarkin Yaki Normans land Fagge Local Government.

(4) House No. 44 Sunusi Street, Gabon Gari, Kano.

These are the properties which the heirs wanted the court to share among them.”

The plaintiff’s counsel told the court that all the heirs of their deceased father were alive and before the court. And that the deceased was neither indebted nor made any will prior to his death.

On 06/10/2010, when the case came up for mention, all the parties and their counsel were before the court. The appellants were represented by their counsel, Yakubu Abdullahi, Esq. Likewise, the respondent was represented by his counsel, A. A. Mu’allim Esq. and Umar I. Umar, Esq. respectively. The respondent’s counsel denied the appellant’s claim in its totality and accordingly prayed the court to strike out the case, on the grounds that the (i) claim was baseless and that the (ii) court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.