M. Ahmadu Usman Vs M. Sidi Umaru (1992)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OGUNDARE, JSC

This case has had a chequered history. It has been heard twice in the Upper Area Court, Keffi, twice in the Sharia Court of Appeal, Jos, once in the High Court, Jos and twice in the Court of Appeal Jos. By the end of this judgment it is going to be heard for the second time in the High Court of Plateau State, Jos. Jurisdiction has been the bone of contention and it is the only issue for determination in this appeal now before us.

Case No. CVFI/12/83 between M. Ahmadu Usman, as plaintiff (now appellant before us) and M. Sidi Umaru, as defendant (now respondent before us) was first tried by the Upper Area Court Keffi, which court entered judgment for the plaintiff. The dispute was over ownership of a piece of land, each party claiming to be the owner. The defendant appealed to the Sharia Court of Appeal which ordered a retrial. At the retrial before the same Court, that is, the Upper Area Court Keffi, both sides stated their case and called witnesses.

At the conclusion of trial, the trial Upper Area Court again found for the plaintiff and entered judgment in his favour. The defendant once again appealed to the Shade Court of Appeal Plateau and Benue States. The Notice and Grounds of Appeal does not form part of the record but it would appear from page 23- page 24 that the appeal was based on 2 Grounds; (a) that the judgment was against weight of evidence and (b) that the trial Court was biased:

“The first ground of appeal, the Appellant said:

the Court did not follow thoroughly the case where it dismissed the peoples I brought as witnesses and the written exhibits I tendered which showed that the land being disputed upon has been inherited by me from my father. Such not is an injustice.

The second ground is that the Judge showed interest on the Judgment since he said he won’t alter anything from the first judgment of which the Sharia Court of Appeal had dismissed.”

This Sharia Court of Appeal after listening to the parties allowed the defendant’s appeal, declared the judgment of the Upper Area Court Keffi as null and void and quashed the same. The plaintiff then appealed to the Court of Appeal holden at Jos upon 2 Grounds which without their particulars read as follows:

“1. The Sharia Court of Appeal, erred in law in entertaining the appeal and passed a decision against the Plaintiff/Appellant when in fact, it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

2. That the Sharia Court erred in law in stating that the Plaintiff/Appellant was estopped from bringing the action before the trial Court on the ground that the case was earlier adjudicated between the Defendant/Respondent and another person not the Plaintiff/Appellant nor a privy to any of the parties earlier decided by another Court.”

The Court of Appeal (Wali JCA. (as he then was), Maidamma and Aikawa, JJCA.) in its judgment of 16th October, 1985 per Wali JCA. held:

“One of the two grounds of appeal filed and canvassed is that the Hon. Sharia Court of Appeal erred in law in entertaining the appeal and passed a decision against the appellant when it had no jurisdiction.’ In support of the ground learned counsel referred to section 242 of the Court and section 11 (e) of the Sharia Court of Appeal Law as interpreted in the unreported decision of this Court in FCA/K/110/80- Alhaji Lawan Zaria City v. Alhaji Maiwada Jaja. He said that the case before the trial Court is simply a dispute involving ownership of the disputed piece of land but not inheritance.

I think there is substance in this arguments (sic). The facts of the case is that both the appellant and the respondent are claiming the disputed farmland on behalf of the estates of their respective deceased parents, and at their stage the question of inheriting or the right to inherit the same would not arise. Therefore both section 242 of the Court and section 11 of the Sharia Court of Appeal cannot apply. See also the unreported decision of this court in CA/J/16s/84- Umar Fanni v. Bukar Sarki in addition to the earlier case cited supra by the learned counsel for the appellant.”

That Court in the exercise of its power under section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act 1976 directed that the plaintiff’s appeal be remitted to the High Court of Plateau State for adjudication by a properly constituted panel of that Court.