Alhaji Sulyman Aliyu V. Lawal Alhaji Almu (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the ruling of Katsina State High Court No. 8 Katsina, delivered on 28/11/2011 by Ibrahim Bature Ahmed J.

The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant who was the plaintiff before the Court below took out a writ of summons against the Respondent who was the defendant at the Court below seeking the relief contained in the statement of claim. After pleadings were filed and exchanged, the Court below set down the suit for hearing.

The Appellant (as plaintiff) called all his witnesses and closed his case. The Respondent (as Defendant) equally opened his case and also called witnesses. The case was adjourned to enable both parties file and adopt their written final addresses.

It was at this stage that the Appellant (as plaintiff) then filed a motion on notice seeking for leave of the Court below to allow him re-open his case which he had earlier closed voluntarily. The Appellant sought to call additional witness or witnesses to support his pleadings regarding Islamic Law in paragraphs 9-11 of his statement of claim.

The motion sought for the following reliefs.

“1. AN ORDER for leave of the Honourable Court to re-open the case for the plaintiff which was closed on the 14th day of February 2011 to enable him conclude evidence in proof of his claim.

2. AND FOR ANY OTHER ORDER(S) as this Court may deem fit to make in the interest of justice in the circumstances.

TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that we shall at the hearing rely on the content of the attached affidavit.”

After hearing both parties to the motion the Court below in a considered ruling dismissed it for lack of merit.

The Appellant being dissatisfied with the said ruling appealed to this Court.

Parties in accordance with the rules of this Court filed their respective briefs of argument.

The Appellant’s Amended brief of argument was prepared by Abdul Aliyu Esq, it was dated 14th February, 2013 but filed on 4/3/2013.

The Appellant from the four grounds of appeal contained in his notice of appeal distilled three issues for determination. The issues are hereby adumbrated as follows:

1. Whether the learned trial judge was not in error when he hold that Islamic Law principles does not require any proof by virtue of section 14 of the Evidence Act. (Distilled from grounds 1 and 2).
2. Whether the failure of the learned trial judge to allow for the re-opening of the Appellant’s case for the purposes of adducing evidence does not amount to a failure of justice occasioning a substantial miscarriage of justice. (Distilled from ground 3).
3. Whether the principles enumerated by the Supreme Court in the case of AGBABIAKA V. SAIBU (1998) 10 NWLR (pt. 571) AT P. 534. Relied upon by the trial judge is not at variance with the principles applicable with the case at hand. (Distilled from grounds 4).

The brief of argument was adopted as the Appellant’s argument in this appeal.