Yerima Madaki V. Anthony Ciroma & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The appellant as the plaintiff instituted suit No.CVGS/68/2013 against the respondents as defendants at the Customary Court (the trial Court) in Gashere town of Kauru Local Government Area of Kaduna State claiming title to a parcel of land. The trial Customary Court, after hearing of the suit delivered its judgment in favour of the respondents. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellant (the plaintiff) appealed to the customary court of Appeal (the tower Court) in appeal No.CCA/KAD/KAF/26A/2014 vide Notice of appeal filed on the 19th of June 20L4.

The Lower Court after hearing the appeal delivered its judgment on the 24/9/14 dismissing the same for lacking in merit. Peeved and Piqued by the judgment of the Lower Court, the appellant appealed to this Court vide Notice of appeal filed on the 29th of November, 2014 on there (3) grounds of appeal. The three (3) grounds of the Notice of appeal shorn of the particulars are thus:

Ground ONE

THE LOWER CUSTOMARY COURT OF APPEAL ERRED IN LAW WHEN IT HELD THAT EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE IS THE EXCLUSIVE RESERVE OF THE TRIAL COURT.

Ground TWO

THE CUSTOMARY COURT OF APPEAL KADUNA STATE ERRED IN LAW AND FACT WHEN IT HELD THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE TRAIL COURT WERE NOT PERVERSE.

Ground THREE

THE CUSTOMARY COURT OF APPEAL ERRED IN LAW AND FACT WHEN IT DISMISSED THE ENTIRE GROUNDS OF APPEAL EVEN AFTER FORMULATING ITS ISSUE FOR DETERMINANON ALONG SIDE THE ONE FORMULATED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE IT.

The appellant’s brief of argument was filed on the 27th of February 2015. Two issues have been distilled out of the three grounds of the Notice of appeal on page 3 thereof. The issues are:

“Whether the Lower Customary Court of Appeal Kaduna was right in holding that it was only the trial Customary Court that had the exclusive jurisdiction to evaluate on matter before it and as a court of Appeal cannot re-evaluate in view of S.57 of its own law 2001.

Whether it was not the refusal of the Lower Customary Court of Appeal Kaduna State to reevaluate the evidence before the Trial Court that made it not to see anything wrong with the verdict of the Trial Court which was given ultra viresty by sacking the appellant on the land they possessed including where their houses were built to vacate with their kins and kindreds.”

The respondents’ brief of argument was filed on the 7th of April 2015 wherein a lone issue has been formulated from the grounds of the Notice of appeal on page 5 which is thus:

“Whether from the totality of the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff/Appellant in support of his claim for