Alhaji Rabilu V. Dr. Abdulrahman Usman (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A.

The Respondent commenced the action in the Lower Court and his claims, by an amended statement of claim dated the 8th of May, 2006, were for:

i. A declaration that the Respondent having accepted the offer to purchase House No. 9, Kaura Road, Badarawa, Kaduna on the 11th of February, 2005, is the lawful holder of all the rights, benefits and enjoyment of that piece of land known House No. 9, Kaura Road, Badarawa, Kaduna.

ii. An order setting aside the purported sale of House No. 9, Kaura Road, Badarawa, Kaduna by the 2nd defendant to the Appellant on the 18th of March, 2005 on the ground that as of that day the 2nd defendant acted in contravention of relevant principles of Islamic Law and no longer had power to so act.

iii. A perpetual order of injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, privies or anybody that is or might be saddled with the responsibility of distributing the estate of Late Col. Yusuf Mohammed from disturbing the Respondent’s possession of the house.

The claims were predicated on an assertion of facts in the

statement of claim. In response, the Appellant filed an amended statement of defence and counterclaim and his claims by the counterclaim were for:

i. A declaration that the purported sale of House No. 9, Kaura Road, Badarawa, Kaduna on the 25th of February, 2005 by the 2nd defendant to the Respondent is unlawful, null and void same being contrary to Islamic legal principles.

In the alternative

ii. A declaration that the Respondent’s failure to pay the purchase price on the 18th of March, 2005 constitutes a breach of contract and that the Appellant’s purchase of House No. 9, Kaura Road, Badarawa, Kaduna is lawful and that the Appellant acquired a valid title.

iii. An order directing the Respondent to vacate and deliver possession of House No. 9, Kaura Road, Badarawa, Kaduna to the Appellant.

iv. N150,000.00 as general damages.

Sequel to the filing of the requisite processes, the matter proceeded to trial and in the course of which the Respondent testified as the sole witness in support of his claims and he tendered exhibits, while the Appellant called four witnesses and also tendered exhibits in support of his counterclaims. After

the close of trial and the taking of final written addresses of the parties, the Lower Court entered judgment wherein it granted the claims of the Respondent and dismissed the counterclaims of the Appellant. The Appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment and he caused his Counsel to file a notice of appeal dated the 3rd of September, 2009 and containing five grounds of appeal against it. The notice of appeal was subsequently amended with the leave of this Court and the Appellant filed an amended notice of appeal containing six grounds of appeal and dated the 15th of November, 2013 and the amended notice of appeal was deemed properly filed by this Court on the 27th of February, 2014.