Haruna Haruna Iii & Ors. V. Arzika Bawa Karaye & Ors. (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

By paragraph 13 of their amended statement of claim dated 20 but filed on 21st July 2005, the Appellants as Plaintiffs commenced Suit No.KB/HC/18/2005 at the Kebbi State High Court against the Respondents herein being the defendants then, jointly claiming the following reliefs:

“1. An order dismissing the defence of the Defendants in this suit in its entirety, for being an afterthought and abuse of the processes of this court with substantial cost against them.

2 A declaration that 1st and 2nd defendants are not eligible to contest, be selected or appointed as the district head of Jega with the title of Sarkin Kabin Jega.

3. An order setting aside and nullifying the selection and appointment of the 1st Defendant as the Sarkin Kabin Jega.
4. An order of the Court declaring that the selection and appointment of the 1st Defendant as the Sarkin Kabin Jega the district head of Jega as null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
5. An order returning the 3rd Plaintiff as duly selected and appointed Sarkin Kabin Jega, the district head of Jega.
6. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants, their ascendant and descendants to contest or be appointed as Sarkin Kabin Jega i.e the district head of Jega.
7. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 3rd and 4th defendants, their agents, servants or privies from interfering in any way with the office of the 3rd Plaintiff upon his return by the court as the new district head of Jega.
8. An order for the defendants to pay the cost of this action.”

As 1st Defendant, the 1st Respondent joined issues with the Appellants. He contested Plaintiffs claim and in paragraph 10 of his statement of defence and counter claim dated and filed on 17th October 2005 counter claimed as follows:-

“1. A DECLARATION that all the descendants of the 10 sons of Sheikh M. Buhari are eligible to apply, contest for the selection and be appointed Sarkin Kabin Jega.

2. A DECLARATION that the decision of the Jega Local Government Council and the Gwandu Emirate Council (3rd defendant) to confirm the eligibility and suitability of the 1st Defendant to apply, contest for the selection and be appointed Sarkin Kabin Jega, after thorough investigation cannot be inquired into by the Court.
3. A DECLARATION that the decision of the Executive Governor of Kebbi state (4th Defendant) to approve the appointment of the 1st Defendant cannot be inquired into by the Court.
4. N1m (One million Naira) SPECIAL DAMAGES being the cost of defending this suit.”

The 2nd and 3rd Respondents as 3rd and 4th defendants joined issues with the Appellants in their twenty five Paragraph joint statement of defence dated 7th but filed on 8th November 2005 also denied plaintiffs claim.

1st and 2nd Appellants with eight others testified to prove plaintiffs case.

1st Defendant, his father and uncle testify in defence and proof of Respondent’s counter claim. Other Defendants rested their case on that of the Plaintiff.

In a well considered judgment delivery on 11th October 2006 the court held thus:-

“1. That 1st Defendant having been found to be a descendant of Mallam Buhari is eligible to contest, be selected and appointed as the District Head of Jega with the title of Sarkin Kabin Jega.

2. That all the male sons and male descendants of Mallam eligible to contest and be appointed Sarkin Kabin Jega.
3. That the 1st Defendant was properly appointed as Sarkin Kabin Jega by the 4th Defendant on the recommendation of the 3rd Defendant in substantial compliance with the provisions of the law.
4. The 2nd Defendant is not eligible to contest, be selected and appointed as the Sarkin Kabin Jega.”

Consequentially, the court dismissed all the reliefs in paragraph 42 (1) to (7) of the Appellants amended statement of claim against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents.

The court however granted the relief in paragraph 7(1) a-d (5) of the Appellants’ amended statement of claim against the 2nd defendant to which extent it held Appellants’ claim had succeeded.

Dissatisfied, Appellants, the Plaintiffs at the court below, have appealed against the judgment by their amended notice of appeal filed on 19th June 2009 containing ten grounds. It is pertinent to observe that the 2nd Defendant at the lower court is not a party to the instant appeal.