Haji Hamma Maishanu & Anor. V. Isa Ardo Manu & Anor. (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MUHAMMAD LADAN TSAMIYA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the decision of Gombe State Sharia Court of Appeal (herein referred to as the lower court) delivered on 3/6/2002 in suit No. GMSJ/SCA/CVA/DB/15/2002, in which the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of Upper Area Court Deba (herein referred to as the trial court) was affirmed.

In the trial court, the appellants, as defendants, were sued by the respondents as plaintiffs, claiming the return of their fathers farmland granted on loan to the respondents. The respondents denied the claim and asserted ownership of the farm land.

The trial court proceeded to call upon the respondents to prove the claim that the farmland belonged to their father and the father granted it on loan before his death to Abba Halilu, from whom the appellants ceased it. The respondents called four witnesses while the appellants called five witnesses and tendered a Certified True Copy of Kumo Area Court’s record of proceeding, which was admitted in evidence but without giving any exhibit number. The trial court after reviewing the evidence adduced by the parties, delivered its judgment on 18/2/2002 in favour of respondents by confirming the farmland’s ownership to them.

Being dissatisfied the appellants appealed to the lower court. At the conclusion of the hearing of both parties, the lower court reviewed the evidence adduced at the trial court vis-a-vis the grounds of appeal and dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court.

The appellants not satisfied with the decision of the lower court appealed to this court on 5 grounds. The grounds of appeal without their particulars read thus:

1. The Hon Khadis of Sharia Court of Appeal Gombe erred in law when they assumed jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal before them when the court lacked jurisdiction to do so.
2. The Sharia Court Appeal erred and misdirected itself when it confirmed the decision of the Upper Area Court Deba which denied the appellants fair trial, thereby occasioning gross injustice.
3. The Sharia Court of Appeal erred in law, when it confirmed the decision of the trial Upper Area Court Deba, thereby occasioning miscarriage of justice.
4. The Sharia Court of Appeal erred in law when it made a finding on fact which was never before it, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.
5. The decision of the Sharia Court of Appeal is unreasonable unwarranted and cannot be supported having regards to the weight of evidence adduced.

On 20th October 2004, the appellants sought and were granted:

(a) Leave to raise fresh issues of law which were not raised at the lower court.

(b) That the brief filed on 17/6/2004 was deemed as duly filed and served.

In compliance with the rules of this court, after the grant of extension of time within which to file appellants’ brief of argument, the appellants filed their brief and the appellants’ brief of argument already filed on 17/6/2004 was deemed as duly filed and served. The respondents, on the other hand, filed the respondents’ brief of argument on 24/11/2004. In their brief of argument, the appellants formulated four issues from the five grounds of appeal, for determination. The issues are as follows:

1. whether the lower court had jurisdiction to hear this case.
2. whether the appellants got fair trial before the lower court.
3. whether the rule of res-judicata is applicable in this case.
4. whether the respondents had proved their claim on the weight of the evidence before the court.

The respondents on the other hand formulated four issues based on the appellants’ grounds of appeal. The issues are:

1. That the lower court has jurisdiction to hear the case.
2. The appellants got fair hearing
3. That the respondents have proved their claim on the weight of the evidence before the court.
4. That all parties have presented their witnesses and all the witnesses have testified to that effect.

To start with, it seems that the respondents are not being represented by any counsel. They drafted the issues in their own way. The so-called issues are not issues for determination but a reply to the issues formulated by the appellants. However, an issue for determination, usually is a proposition of law or of fact in dispute between the parties, necessary for determination by the court and the determination of which normally affects the result of the appeal. See Onifade v. Olayiwola (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt.161) at 130. Its purpose is to enable the parties narrow the issues in the grounds of appeal filed in the interest of accuracy, clarity and brevity. See: Ogbuanyinya v. Okudo (No.2) (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt.146) 551 at 568.

Since the issues settled by the appellants are clearer. I shall, for the determination of this appeal adopt the issues of the appellants.

Issue I