Mallam Amadu Gabari v. Baita Garba Na Babanuwa (2025)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal Kaduna Judicial Division, Coram: Ahmad O. Belgore, Abubakar D. Yahaya and Mas’ud Oredola, JJCA, wherein the Court below affirmed the decision of the Sharia Court of Appeal, Kano in Appeal No. SCA/CV/KN/308/99 dated the 15th day of November, 2000 which reversed the decision of the Area Court Kano, Kano State in Suit No. CV/245/98 dated 30th September, 1999.

This appeal arises from a disagreement over the distribution of an estate. The dispute was initially brought before the City No. 1 Area Court, Kano, by Alhaji Garba Na Baban Uwa Gabari against Mallam Amadu Gabari. On August 5, 1998, the trial court considered the complainant’s claim wherein Alhaji Garba stated:

I am urging the court to take and give me the share of my inheritance of the estate of Bako, the father of my mother, Iya, which is in the hand of Amadu.”

When questioned about his relationship with the defendant, Alhaji Garba explained:

The father of Amadu, called Muhammad Dugululu, and Bako had the same father, Wangara. Amadu is the junior brother of my mother.

Alhaji Garba further stated that the house in question originally belonged to Wangara, their mutual ancestor, who had passed away approximately 115 – 120 years prior.

In proof of his claim, the complainant called 5 (five) witnesses. However, the trial Area Court immediately dismissed the testimonies of PW1 and PW2, citing their lack of familiarity with the complainant, let alone his connection to the defendant.

Additionally, while delivering its judgment, the trial court disclosed that it had also disregarded the evidence of PW3, PW4 and PW5, holding that these witnesses failed to establish any link between the deceased Bako and Wangara, the common ancestor of both parties.

In response, the defendant denied having any blood relationship with the claimant and called 3 (three) witnesses, whose testimonies were contested by the complainant on grounds of affinity through marriage and blood. Nevertheless, the trial court rejected their evidence as well, on the basis that none of the witnesses demonstrated sufficient knowledge of the rightful heirs of Wangara.

On September 30, 1999, the trial court delivered its judgment rejecting the testimony of all the witnesses from both sides and held:

The court rejects all the witnesses for both the complainant and the defendant. As the position remains like that, the court gives judgment that this house should be left in the hand of those who are holding it for the following reasons: Both the complainant and the defendant failed to get competent witnesses to prove their claims, especially the complainant, who wants to get his share of inheritance out of the estate of his grandfather, Bako.

Nobody proved that Bako is the son of Wangara, talkless of giving him his share out of the estate of Wangara, as the origin of the place is not confirmed to be part of the share of the complainant, so he will not be given a share of inheritance.”

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, Alhaji Garba (now deceased) appealed to the Sharia Court of Appeal, Kano.