Rugga Kwatte V. Maigari Isah (1998)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Kebbi State Sharia Court of Appeal delivered on the 24th January. 1995 hereinafter called the court below.

In the Upper Area Court Argungu, herein referred to as the trial court, the plaintiff, now appellant, sued the defendant/respondent herein claiming for a declaration of title and ownership of the farmland, in dispute and got judgment. The respondent appealed to the court below sitting at Birnin Kebbi which court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court. The appellant then appealed against the decision of the court below and filed a notice of appeal, the amended notice of appeal contains four grounds of appeal thus:-

1. The Sharia Court of Appeal, Birnin Kebbi lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

Particulars

(a) The dispute regarding title to and ownership of a farm land are not matters bordering on inheritance of the farm land.

(b) The appellant and the respondent are not common heirs to the farm land.

(c) The Sharia Court of Appeal, Birnin Kebbi has jurisdiction over Islamic personal laws only.

2. The judgment of the Sharia Court of Appeal is against the weight of evidence adduced before the Upper Area Court which the Sharia Court of Appeal was bound to uphold.

Particulars

(a) The Sharia Court of Appeal failed to evaluate properly evidence of the parties before it as to credibility of witnesses whereas it is not a trial court.

(b) The Sharia Court of Appeal refused to find upon the judgment of the Upper Area Court Yeldu on the land previously which is before it but instead went on frolic of its own.

3. The Sharia Court of Appeal Birnin Kebbi erred in law by giving the respondent oath during the hearing of the appeal.

Particulars

(a) Complimentary oath is given only when a witness has a credible witness (sic) but not sufficient to discharge the burden as required by the Sharia and this at hearing by the trial court not on appeal.

(b) It was wrong to offer the oath on appeal.

4. The Sharia Court of Appeal erred in law by introducing and admitting fresh facts not raised by the parties at the trial court.

Particulars