Lawan Mai Gana V. Ya Falmata Alhajiram (1997)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, J.C.A. 

At the Maiduguri Upper Area Court No.1 the plaintiff, now appellant instituted an action against the defendant, now respondent claiming 12 cows from the respondent.

The Upper Area Court No.1 herein called the trial court entered judgment in favour of the appellant herein, the cows were given to him.

The respondent herein successfully appealed to the Borno State Sharia Court of Appeal herein referred to as court below.

This appeal therefore is against the decision of the Borno State Sharia Court of Appeal. I reproduce the grounds of appeal as contained on the Notice of Appeal filed thus:-

1. The Borno State Sharia Court of Appeal erred in law by entertaining the appeal when it clearly lacked jurisdiction over it

Particulars of Error:

(a). The claim before the Upper Area Court No. 1, Maiduguri did not disclose any issue of Islamic Law.

(b) The Notice of appeal before the lower court dated 8th June, 1993 did not disclose any issue of Islamic Law.

(c) Neither the arguments canvassed in the court below nor the judgment of the lower court involves questions of Islamic Law for determination.

(d) In the circumstances, only the High Court of Borno State is competent to hear the appeal.

2. The Borno State Sharia Court of appeal erred in Law when it heard the appeal based on grounds which are incompetent.

Particulars of Error:

(a) All the grounds of appeal contained in the Notice of Appeal dated 8th June, 1993 were filed without particulars.

(b) The place of abode of the plaintiff s witnesses, weight of evidence, reliance by the trial court on a decision of the High Court and impropriety of fresh trial were all argued as grounds of appeal before the lower court despite the fact that they were not contained in the Notice of Appeal as grounds of Appeal and no leave was granted by the lower court to argue same as grounds of appeal.

3. The decision is against the weight of evidence.

This court ordered briefs to he filed and exchanged. The appellant in compliance with the rules of this court filed their amended appellants’ brief by the order of this court on 27/6/95. Since then the respondent failed to file their respondent’s brief of argument. On 7/7/97 under Order 6 Rule 9(e) allowed the appellant to argue the appeal on his brief alone. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. J.T. Gunda drew the attention of this court to their amended appellants’ brief. He indicated his reliance and adoption of same. He told the court that he has nothing more to add other than urging this court to allow the appeal.