Yale Dan Dare V. Sutura Muh?d Gama Gama (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is the judgment in respect of the decision of the Sharia Court of Appeal Sokoto in suit No. SCA/YB/110/2011 delivered on 28/11/2012.

Sutura Muh?d Gama ? Gama originally instituted this action at the Lower Court Yabo Claiming as follows:-

”I Sutura Moh?d Gama Gama suing Yale Dan Dare because I want this Court to collect my mother?s farm land. This farm is with him on pledge because when she was alive she gave him the farm on a pledge for the benefit of both of them. Now that she is dead he said the farm was sold to him and that I, her daughter I am not aware of that sale and that all her relatives are not aware of the sale/transaction between him and our mother.

That is why I am praying this Court to collect my farm from him and that the farm located at a place called Babban Wuri (Big premises) which is adjacent to: East ? Alu Majayi, West ? Almu, South ? Burtali, and North ? Daudu. And that in the place there is also a farm of Magaji and the younger sister of my mother, this is my claim.?

?After hearing the parties,

1

the lower Sharia Court Yabo gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff in the following terms:-

”Based on what was transpired above of getting 2 witnesses and the confession of the defendant that farm was on hire to him, and the lack of any credible witness of the defendant Yale dan dare Gama Gama and the fact that the transaction was not in accordance with the principles of Shari?ah, because of this I, the lower Sharia Court Judge Dingyadi Maniru Abdullahi who was assigned to go to Yabo and decide the case, I ordered the revocation of this transaction which Yale Dan dare had with the mother of the plaintiff. He should go and collect his money from the person he gave the transaction money. I also returned the disputed farm to the plaintiff Sutura Gama-Gama and as from today, I ordered Yale to take away his hands from the farm as from today.

REASON FOR THE JUDGEMENT

1. Revocation of sale transaction becomes compulsory where there is no possession of the subject matter as it was reported in the book of AL-FIGHUL ? AL MAZHABUL ARBA?A, VOL. 2 page 137 that:

Because this disputed farm belong to the plaintiff and there is

2

totally no sale transaction in respect, there is no evidence of such transaction between the plaintiff?s mother and the defendant.

2. Explanation on returning the price money to the defendant. See ASHALUL-MADARIKI VOL. 2.

Meaning: he knows his and us and those who sold to him should return his price money, he should collect his money from the person he gave it to. And the return of disputed property to the owners see page 72 where it was stated: