Aliyu Ibrahim v. Amina Dan Dille & Ors (2024)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Zamfara State Sharia Court of Appeal, sitting at Gusau delivered on 1st day of March, 2022 dismissing the earlier judgment of the Upper Sharia Court, K/Namoda which upheld the judgment of Higher Sharia Court, Kasuwar Daji.

The appellant herein commenced a civil action at the Higher Sharia Court, Kasuwar Daji seeking for the repossession of some farmland allegedly sold to the respondents herein (the defendants) without the consent of all their siblings. The claim is at page 1 of the record and it reads as follows:

I Ali Ibrahim Magargari hereby filed the claim against my brother before this court in respect of claiming for the inherited farm land which are located at Gidan Kanga Village and one farm at Magargari Village, and our father died and left the following heirs:

1. One wife by name Nasara
2. Four male children, Lawali, Abdulmuminu, Mal. Ibrahim, and Aliyu.
3. One female child, Rakiya.

Therefore, we consulted him to give our farms, that is why we are before this court to make proper investigation and give our inherited farms.

In response to the above claim, the defendant (Lawali Umaru Magargari) admitted selling the said farmlands to the respondents herein at page 9 of the record thus:

Ans, the defendant Lawali:

Yes is true, I sold the 2 farms, the 1st farm which is located to the very close of our town, I sold it at the rate of 1,400 to one located at Kwari Amadu D/Dille and the 2nd far which was in village, I sold it at the rate of 1,500 to one Alh. Garba and when I sold the farms my father was sick and he died as a result of that illness and I never told any of the remaining surviving heirs.

When the trial Higher Sharia Court summoned the persons who purchased the farmland, who are the respondents herein, both confirmed buying the farmlands not from the defendant but from his father, Umaru. And consequent to this twist of event, the trial court went into trial to ascertain the true position of the sale. At the end of the trial, the trial Higher Sharia Court found at pages 28 of the record as follows:

While the plaintiff has obtained three witnesses, where two (2) witnesses are reliable and credited while the other one said he doesn’t know anything about the farm which is in possession of Alh. Garba, that is why he has failed but in respect of the farmland which is in possession of Ahmadu Dandile, the plaintiff has obtained 3 reliable witnesses and they give their testimony in favour of the plaintiff.

Despite the said Lawali has agreed that, he has sold these inherited farms and all the witnesses adduced before the court from the side of the plaintiff Aliyu and that of the 2nd and 3rd defendants has confirmed, it is an inherited farm and the farm does not (sic) been shared among heirs, because these farmlands have been sold before the death of their father.

In the end, judgment was entered against the respondents herein who appealed to the Upper Sharia Court, Kaura Namoda contending that the trial Higher Sharia Court erred for not countenancing the sale agreement between them and the real owner of the farmlands, Umaru Giwa but the judgment of the trial court was affirmed. Still dissatisfied, the respondents appealed to the lower court which set aside the concurrent judgment of the two lower courts. At page 54 of the record, learned Kadis of the lower court has this to say:

Because of this, we the Kadis of Sharia Court of Appeal, Gusau hereby confirmed that, the owner of the two farmlands Umaru was survived after his sickness because the counsel to the appellant Barr. Siddiq Wakkala made a submission that, the owner of the farm survived at Upper Sharia Court because he has even married a woman named Tantano. But this court did not investigate and disregarded the claim, and the counsel to the respondent did not say anything against this claim. For that even the real owner of the farm i.e. Late Umaru should not have the right to sue the appellants due to the duration of 33 years, let alone his children. Therefore, this ground mentioned has more impact, failure to make proper investigation made by the 2 court which was (sic) contradict the rule of Islamic Law.

Miffed by the judgment of the lower court above, appellant appealed to this court through a notice of appeal filed on 10/5/2022, containing (8) eight grounds of appeal located at pages 56 to 60 of the record of appeal. Distilled from ground No. 1 of the said grounds of appeal, appellant formulated a sole issue thus: