Gurama Jauro & Anor V. Buba Danmaraya (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an Appeal against the decision of the High Court of Justice Gombe State in Suit No. GM/93/2000 delivered on the 22nd October, 2007 in which Judgment was entered in favour of the Respondent in a claim in respect of title to land filed by the Respondent.

The Respondent in his claim before the Lower Court stated that he had hired out a part of the farmland he inherited from his father to the Appellants. That subsequently after paying rents on the land for two years, the Appellants failed to pay further rents for periods ranging for between 16 to 20 years. On the part of the Appellants, they contended that the Respondents father was granted the farmland as a traditional tenant who did not pay any rent.

That the land was supposed to revert to the Appellants parents after the Respondents father vacated same, which never happened as the Respondents father lived and died on the farmland, as did his wife and some of his children. The issue as to the land had been taken variously before two Area Courts, Upper Area Courts and the Sharia Court

of Appeal, and the proceedings from these Courts were all tendered in evidence before the Lower Court.

At the close of trial, the Appellants in their final address to the Lower Court contended that the Respondent, in his claim did not seek title to the farmland in dispute, but only claimed for rent for thereon which was outstanding. The Appellants also contended that the suit was an abuse of Court process since there was a pending Order by the Sharia Court of Appeal (in the Exhibit BD6) transferring the suit to the High Court of Justice Gombe for hearing on the basis that the Sharia Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to decide the issues involving non-Moslems.

The Appellants contend that the Respondent disregarded that suit and filed another suit before the Lower Court. However, in his Judgment, the learned trial Judge discountenanced this submission and, on the 22nd day of October, 2007, entered Judgment in favour of the Respondent. It is against this decision that the Appellants are appealing. Dissatisfied, they filed a Notice of Appeal on 05-11-07 wherein they complained on seven grounds.

?On 27th October, 2015, when the Appeal was called up for

hearing, learned Counsel for the Respondent was not in Court even though there was proof of service of a hearing notice duly served on him through his Counsel, C. D. Kadala & Co, received by its Secretary, Nade Sale. It was also on Record that the Respondent, having been duly served the Appellants? Brief of argument, had also not filed a Respondent?s Brief of argument, and so this Court had granted leave for the Appeal to be heard on the Appellants? Brief alone. Consequently, learned Counsel for the Appellants, Jonathan Mshelizah Esq., duly argued the Appeal by adopting the Appellants? Brief of argument filed on 07-07-15 as their submissions in the Appeal. He urged the Court to allow the Appeal and to set aside the Judgment of the Lower Court.

?In the said Brief of argument, the Appellants distilled three issues for determination from the seven grounds of Appeal as follows:

1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in assuming jurisdiction, proceeding to try this matter and ultimately entering Judgment in same? (Grounds 1, 5, and 6)
2. Whether the learned trial Judge, based on the pleadings

and the totality of the evidence before him, was right to have granted all the reliefs sought by the Respondent? (Grounds 2, 3, and 4)

3. Whether the entire proceeding is not caught by limitation of time such as to deprive the trial Court of Jurisdiction to try the same? (Ground 7)

I adopt the issues as formulated in the determination of the Appeal, except for some minor corrections in grammar to make them more comprehensible. However, I must observe that the arguments marshaled under the issues were quite disjointed and jumbled as Counsel mixed up arguments under one issue for the other, and in many cases, was repetitive. Much as the Brief of argument tendered to be quite incoherent, in line with the authorities on the issue, I will try and make some sense of the submissions of Counsel as he attempted to set them out in his arguments under the three issues.

Issue one:

Whether the learned trial Judge was right in assuming jurisdiction, proceeding to try this matter and ultimately entering judgment in same?