Balla Umaru & Anor Vs Abdul Mutallabi & Ors (1998)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

WALI, J.S.C.

This case seems to have a chequered history. It’s origin dated back to 1929 when one Umaru from Madabo Quarters, Kano City through his representative, Mallam Maikara complained before the court of Emir of Kano on 21/7/29 that a woman named Bidda who came from the West had entered the house that he inherited from his father Inuwa, claiming the same house to belong to her father Dalha. Bidda and her two sisters namely Rukayya and Gambo were joint defendants to Umaru’s complaint. The matter was referred to the Chief Alkali’s court by Emir’s court for further investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation, the following report was made to the Emir’s court-

“When they were arraigned before the Alkali it was alleged that the boy was a grandson to the owner of the house. The witnesses appeared before the Alkali but they did not testify that the boy was related by blood to the owner of the house and when they came back to us (the Emir’s court) Jekada (emissary between the Emir’s and the Chief Alkali’s courts) told us that the boy had not been ascertained through witnesses to be related by blood to the owner of the house. But there is long residence of his father Inuwa in the house and these women it is the distribution of inheritance which they are demanding.” (Words in bracket supplied by me)

It appears from the record of proceedings, particularly that of the Sharia Court of Appeal, that there was an appeal against the judgment of the Emir’s court, Kano delivered in 1929 sometime in 1979. The appeal was registered as No. SCA/CA/KN/191/79 and the Sharia Court of Appeal, Kano in its judgment delivered on 4/3/80 allowed the appeal and made an order for a fresh trial.

The case was tried by the Upper Area Court 1 presided over by Rufai Bello (as he then was) who distributed the house in dispute between the heirs. The then defendants appealed to the Sharia Court of Appeal, Kano which affirmed the decision of the Upper Area Court 1 and dismissed the appeal. On further appeal by the then defendants to the Court of Appeal Kaduna, the appeal was allowed and a retrial ordered. Hence the trial before Upper Area Court II Kano presided over by Bashir Ahmed (as he then was) leading to the present appeal.

Abdul-Mutallabi, Ado Abba and Usman Musa were the plaintiffs before the Upper Area Court II, Kano claiming against Alhaji Bala and Alhaji Inuwa representing Biota, a house No. 53 Gadar Salga in Unguwar Jumma Quarters Kano City and a farm at Rangaza village, Kano, left behind by their grandfather Mallam Yahaya who died about 60 years ago. The plaintiffs claimed that Mallam Yahaya inherited both the house and the farm from his father Muhammadu. The plaintiffs stated their pedigree as follows:

Yahaya their grandfather was survived on his death by three daughters as follows: (1) Aminatu Shekara Hadizatu [Gambo] and Mariya [Sake] and his wife Safiyatu. Aminatu [Shekara] is the mother of Abdul Mutallabi [1st plaintiff, Hadizatu [Gambo] gave birth to Abba and Musa who are the fathers of Audu (Ado) [the 2nd plaintiff) and Usman [the 3rd plaintiff) respectively.

Alhaji Bala and Alhaji Inuwa, [representing Binta] denied the plaintiffs’ claim. Alhaji Bala admitted that he is a grandson of Mariya, [Sake] the daughter of Yahaya and the wife of his grandfather Inuwa, and the latter gave birth to his father Umaru. He claimed that both house and the farm were properties of his grandfather Inuwa and on his death about 60 years ago, his father Umaru inherited both the house and the farm. He further stated that about 2 years before his father’s death he [his father] sold the house to Alhaji Magaji Dano for N26,000.00 [Words in bracket supplied by me].

Alhaji Inuwa who was representing Binta and related to her through his mother agreed with what Alhaji Bala, [the 1st defendant] stated.

The case then proceeded to trial. The learned trial Upper Area Court Judge called upon the plaintiffs to prove their claim. The plaintiffs called five witnesses the evidence of four of which was rejected by the trial court. It reserved ruling on whether or not to accept the evidence of Mai’unguwar Juma Bako who was P. W. 2.

The court then turned on the defendants to prove their case. They called four witnesses out of which it accepted the evidence of Alhaji Mohammed Bashir the village head of Rangaza [D. W. 1], [D. W. 3) Muhammadu Rangaza and M. Zubairu Unguwar Juma [D.W.4].

The defendants also called three witnesses to prove that the house in dispute was sold by Umaru the 1st defendant’s father to Alhaji Magaji Dano for N26,000 before the former’s death.

After the i’zar, which is the equivalent of allocutus in a criminal trial, the trial Judge reviewed the evidence and made the following finding:-

“1. In the opinion of the court you the plaintiffs have got one good evidence for your complain and you the representatives [1st and 2nd defendants] have got witnesses on your views [complaints] which said the origin of the house and the farm belongs to Inuwa, therefore the court preferred the sayings of Mallam Asbagu which states that he preferred the evidence of one’ witness to be completed by the plaintiff’s oath as stated on page 47 of Ihkamul Ahkam-commentary on Tuhfa.”