Saini Danjuwa V. Hajja Baaji (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE J.C.A.

This appeal is sequel to an action instituted in the civil Area Court Gombe, Gombe State of Nigeria, whereby the Appellant Malian Saini Danjuwa, claimed a land in the possession of a lady, Hajja Ba’aji. He claimed that the land in dispute was subject of a litigation between him and one Buba Yero. The Defendant, Hajja Ba’aji denied the claim and explained that her in-law Malian Ibrahim bought the land for her from Mallam Muhammadu Badara who was in possession of same for over seventeen years. The claim of the Plaintiff was given to the defendant by the Civil Area Court Gombe and the land in dispute was given to the defendant – Hajja Ba’aji. On appeal to the Upper Area Court Gombe, the decision of the lower Court was affirmed and appeal dismissed under section 59 (1) (a) of the Area Court Edict. The Plaintiff unsuccessfully further appealed to Gombe State Sharia Court of Appeal. That Court decided that the Plaintiff has slept on his right for over 17 years and the principles of prescription in Islamic law (HAUZI) has caught up with him. The decisions of both Upper Area Court and Civil Area Courts have been affirmed and his appeal dismissed.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Gombe State Sharia Court of Appeal, the Plaintiff, now Appellant appealed to this Court and filed Notice of Appeal containing three grounds of appeal as follows:-

Ground One

The learned Kadis of the Sharia Court of Appeal erred in law when they held that the Upper Area Court was right to hold that the Respondent is in long possession hence it is not for the Upper court to apply Hauzi.

Particulars of Error

(1) There is nothing to justify the above findings of long possession of the land by the Respondent.

(2) There was sufficient evidence that the Respondent came into the land in 1990.

(3) There was sufficient and adequate evidence that the Appellant has been in long possession of the land.

(4) The Upper Area Court No.1 Gombe grossly misdirected itself and in law by introducing Hauzi.

Ground Two

That trial Court misdirected itself in fact in law by denying the appellant/plaintiff from bringing witnesses.

Particulars of Error

(1) The Appellant was denied rights to produce witnesses to support his claim.