ADAMU v. ADAMU (2020)

ADAMU v. ADAMU

(2020)LCN/14389(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(YOLA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Monday, June 01, 2020

CA/YL/172/18

Before Our Lordships:

Chidi Nwaoma Uwa Justice of the Court of Appeal

James Shehu Abiriyi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abdullahi Mahmud Bayero Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

ZAKARI SHUAIBU ADAMU APPELANT(S)

And

ALHAJI DAUDA ADAMU RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT IT IS THE WRIT OF SUMMONS AND STATEMENT OF CLAIM THAT DETERMINES THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

It is the writ of summons and statement of claim of the plaintiff that determines the jurisdiction of the Court. Jurisdiction is the power or authority of a Court to adjudicate over a particular subject matter and it is the nature of the claim that has to be considered. See JAMES VS. INEC (2015) 12 NWLR (PT. 1474) 12 NWLR (PT. 1474) PAGE 538 at 597, PARAGRAPHS G – H, SUN INSURANCE NIGERIA PLC VS. UMEZ ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED (2015) 11 NWLR (PT. 1471) PAGE 576 at 604 – 605, PARAS. H – A. PER UWA, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT CAN RAISE A CASE SUO MOTU FOR PARTIES

It is the law that the Court cannot make a case for the parties different from the case set up by them in their pleadings. In ANIMASHAWUN VS. OSUMA &ORS (1972) LPELR – 493 (SC) P. 21, PARA. D His Lordship Fatayi – Williams, JSC summarized the position of the law thus:
“… It is not the function of a Court of trial to raise for the parties issues which they had neither pleaded nor relied upon. The case should be decided on the issues properly raised in the pleadings.”
Similarly, in OBMIAMI BRICK & STONE (NIGERIA) LIMITED VS. AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LIMITED (1992) LPELR – 2177 (SC) P. 71, PARA E His Lordship Omo, JSC held thus:
“It is the plaintiff in a case who sets out what he is claiming and his success or failure must be decided on the basis of his claim(s). It is not the duty of the Court to make out a different case for him.”
See OJO – OSAGIE VS. ADONRI (1994) LPELR – 2386 (SC) PP. 19 – 20, PARAS F – A, KAYILI VS.YILBUK & ORS (2015) LPELR – 24323 (SC) P. 52, PARAS. A – F, BANKOLE & ANOR VS. DENAPO & ANOR (2019) LPELR – 46444 (CA) PP. 11 – 12, PARAS. E – A and NBCI VS. INTEGRATED GAS (NIG) LTD (2005) LPELR (2016) 1 at 21 – 22. PER UWA, J.C.A.

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Adamawa State (hereafter referred to as the trial Court) delivered on the 27th day of June, 2018, by Waziri, J. in favour of the Respondent who was the defendant at the trial Court.

The Appellant as plaintiff instituted an action against the Respondent claiming General and Special Damages of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) for trespass on his farm land, intimidation and threat to life. The trial Court refused all the reliefs sought.

The background facts on the part of the Appellant are that the Appellant and another became the owners of a farm land measuring 1.116 hectares at Fa’a,Misi Dol Voh, Hong, Hong Local Government Area of Adamawa State by virtue of inheritance under Islamic Law vide Exhibit A – A14 (the judgment of Hon. Hashimu S. Amila then judge of the (Upper Area Court Gombi) delivered in 2012. In 2015, the Appellant planted rice on the farmland. The Respondent, a non heir also claimed ownership of the same farm land vide Exhibit D – D4, the judgment of Hon. M.D. Adamu, who was also the judge of the

Upper Area Court Gombi and a brother to the Respondent. It was made out that the Respondent relied on Exhibit D – D4 which showed that the Respondent bought an unidentified ‘‘SMALL PORTION’’ of farm land at Misi for N150,000.00 (One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) and obtained the conviction of the appellant for two years imprisonment for trespass with hard labour vide Exhibit B – B3, the judgment of another judge of the Upper Area Court Gombi. On appeal, the appellant was discharged and acquitted by the High Court, vide Exhibit C – C3. It was alleged that the Respondent confiscated the entire farm land distributed to the appellant and another heir, vide Exhibit A – A14 and has remained on the land as a trespasser.

In 2014, the Sharia Court of Appeal, vide Exhibit E – E7, set aside Exhibit D – D4. After the appeals were allowed at the High Court and the Sharia Court of Appeal, the Appellant planted rice on his inherited farm land in 2015. The Appellant alleged that the Respondent refused to obey the judgments in Exhibits A – A14 and E – E7 destroyed the rice and maize planted by the

Appellant on the farm with herbicide. The Appellant was denied cultivation of his farm land in 2015, he sued the Respondent before the trial High Court claiming N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) General and Special Damages. It was contended by the Appellant that the trial Court converted a civil claim of damages for trespass to civil appeal by setting aside Exhibit A – A14 and affirmed the judgment in Exhibit D – D4 which had been earlier set aside by the Sharia Court of Appeal, Yola and refused all the reliefs sought by the appellant. It was made out that the trial Court in its judgment delivered in 2012 held that the judgment in Exhibit A – A14 is an abuse of Court Process because the Respondent had already bought the farm land subject of the alleged trespass vide the judgment in Exhibit D – D4 delivered in 2010 irrespective of the fact that Exhibit D – D4 was set aside by the Sharia Court of Appeal, Yola vide Exhibit E – E7.

The trial Court held that the only relief available to the appellant is retrial/redistribution of the estate of the Appellant’s father as ordered by the Sharia Court of Appeal vide Exhibit

E – E7, since the Respondent had bought the farm land vide Exhibit D – D4.

It was contended that the trial Court failed to make any findings on the competence or otherwise of the Respondent’s statement of Defence which was challenged by the Appellant.

Unhappy with the decision of the trial High Court, the Appellant appealed to this Court in which three issues were formulated for the determination of the appeal thus:
1. “Whether the Trial High Court has the requisite jurisdiction to convert civil claim of damages for trespass to civil appeal and proceeded to set aside the judgment in EXHIBIT A – A14 and affirmed the judgment in EXHIBIT D – D4 whilst this judgment was earlier set aside by the Sharia Court of Appeal Yola vide EXHIBIT E – E7 particularly as both judgments deal exclusively with distribution of estate under Islamic Law.
2. Whether the trial High Court was right to hold that the only relief available to the Appellant is retrial/redistribution of the estate of the Appellant’s father as ordered by the Sharia Court of Appeal, Yola, vide EXHIBIT E – E7 because the Respondent has

already bought the farm land though the parties did not seek for retrial, besides EXHIBIT A – A14 has already conferred ownership of the farm land to the Appellant thereby estopping retrial.
3. Whether the trial High Court was right when it refused to make a finding on the incompetent Statement of Defence of the Defendant/Respondent.”

In response, the Respondent formulated two issues thus:
1. “Whether the trial High Court Yola has jurisdiction to set aside a matter bordering on res-judicata.
2. Whether the statement of defence of the Respondent before the trial Court was incompetent.”

In arguing the appeal, the learned counsel to the appellant Y.Y. Isa Esq., adopted and relied on his brief of argument filed on 29/1/19 and his reply brief filed on 7/6/19, deemed properly filed the same day as his argument in this appeal in urging us to allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower Court, enter judgment for the Appellant and grant all the reliefs sought. In arguing the first issue, it was submitted that what was before the High Court was a claim of damages for trespass and not appeal against the decision in

Exhibit A – A14. It was submitted that the Sharia Court of Appeal did not set aside Exhibit A – A14 when the Appellant appealed against Exhibit D – D4. Further, that Exhibit A – A14 is on the distribution of estate under Islamic Law by virtue of Section 277 (2) (c)of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) hereafter referred to as the Constitution. We were urged to hold that the trial High Court lacked the jurisdiction to set aside Exhibit A – A14. See, EGUNJOBI VS. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2002) FWLR (PT. 105), PAGE 896 at 901. Further, that the trial High Court lacked the jurisdiction to affirm the judgment of Hon. M.D. Adamu (Exhibit D – D4) which purported to sell an unidentified “SMALL PORTION” of farm land at Misi to the Respondent at N150,000.00 (One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) which judgment was set aside by the Sharia Court of Appeal, Yola. It was argued that since the Sharia Court of Appeal vide Exhibit E – E7 set aside the judgment in Exhibit D – D4, the trial High Court lacked jurisdiction to reverse same, pages 217 – 218 of the printed records

of appeal. See SKENCONSULT VS. UKEY (1981) 1 SC 6, MOGREY VS. IKPOTOR (2001) NWLR 268 – 523, (PT. 727) PAGE 336 at PAGE 340. We were urged to hold that the trial High Court had no jurisdiction to set aside Exhibit A – A14 and to have affirmed Exhibit D – D4 which had already been set aside by the Sharia Court of Appeal, Yola.

In arguing his issue two, it was submitted that the parties did not seek for retrial, moreso Exhibit A – A14 had conferred ownership of the farm land to the Appellant and the Sharia Court of Appeal Yola had declared the purchase of the farm land by the respondent null and void. It was argued that the trial High Court ought to have examined the claim of the Appellant and decided whether as at 2015 by virtue of Exhibit A – A14 and Exhibit E – E7, the Appellant had a better title and in possession of the farm land entitling him to the damages sought instead of converting a civil claim for damages to a civil appeal to set aside Exhibit A – A14 and affirming Exhibit D – D4 earlier set aside by the Sharia Court of Appeal vide Exhibit E – E7. It was submitted that the Sharia Court of

Appeal which has jurisdiction over the matter did not set aside Exhibit A – A4 and there was no appeal against the decision, therefore the judgment remains valid and legally binding thus foreclosing retrial.

Without conceding to the order for retrial, it was submitted that by virtue of Exhibits A – A14, E – E7 and F – F2, the Respondent is excluded and barred from participating in the retrial/redistribution of the estate of the Appellant’s father. It was argued that the Respondent is not one of the heirs listed in Exhibit F – F2. We were urged to hold that the only remedy available to the Respondent if any is to claim a refund of his N150,000.00 from his alleged vendors. It was submitted that the Respondent did not appeal but, confiscated the entire farm distributed to the Appellant and another in 2012 and has remained in trespass till date in disobedience to Exhibit A – A14 and E – E7. See, BABATUNDE VS. OLATUNJI (2000) 2 NWLR (PT. 646) 557. Further, that the Respondent has not claimed ownership or possession of the farm land subject of the trespass and distributed to the Appellant vide Exhibit A –

A14 or the portion said to have been bought vide the nullified Exhibit D – D4. It was stressed that Exhibits A – A14 and E – E7 nullified the purported purchase of an unidentified farm land by the Respondent. It was submitted that the appellant proved exclusive ownership and possession of the land and properly claimed damages. See SOMMER VS. F.H.A. (1992) 1 NWLR (PT. 219) PAGE 548 at 552. It was concluded on this issue that the Appellant is entitled to the reliefs sought.

On issue three, it was submitted that the Respondent’s statement of defence failed to deny any or all the allegations of fact in the Appellant’s statement of claim which in law are taken to have been admitted. It was argued that the denials were not specific but, evasive, generalized, misleading and contrary to the provisions of Order 25 Rule 7 (2) 12, 13 (1), (2) of the Adamawa State High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2013. It was concluded that the Respondent is deemed to have admitted all the allegations of fact in the Appellant’s Amended Statement of claim. See JACOBSON ENG. LTD. VS. UBA LTD (1993) 3 NWLR (PT. 283) PAGE 586 at PAGE 590.

In response, the learned counsel to the Respondent U.D. Silas Esq., adopted and rely on his brief of argument filed on 21/5/19, deemed properly filed and served on 7/10/19, as his argument in the appeal in urging us to dismiss the appeal. In arguing his first issue, it was submitted that the Respondent having purchased the farm land through the distribution of the Estate in 2010 has continued farming on it till date, despite the fact that the Sharia Court of Appeal set aside the distribution and ordered a retrial, page 255 of the printed records of appeal, lines 15 and 16. It was submitted that the Appellant who is an heir to the Estate of his father Shuaibu Adamu instituted an action in 2012 over the same subject matter of distribution before the Upper Area Court Gombi, before a different judge in 2012. The Respondent questioned why Hon. Amila proceeded with the same matter between the same parties having known that another judge had determined same in 2010, pages 243 – 246 of the records. It was argued that the Sharia Court of Appeal, Yola ordered a retrial for the distribution of late Shuaibu Adamu’s Estate which did not involve the Respondent.

Further, that the trial High Court rightly observed that since the matter had been ordered for retrial by the Sharia Court of Appeal, allowing the judgment delivered by Hon. Amila of 2012 is of no moment. It was argued that the Respondent has remained in possession of the portion sold to him with the consent of the heirs of late Shuaibu Adamu. Further, that the matter before the trial High Court was a claim for damages as a result of the distribution by Hon. Amila which constitutes res judicata and that the Trial High Court did not determine the matter as an Appellate Court.

On his issue two, the learned counsel submitted that the Appellant amended his pleadings before the Trial Court to bring in documents which needed to be pleaded and that the Respondent saw no need to have amended his pleadings. It was submitted that the Trial High Court did not err in law when it did not pronounce on issues two and three of the Appellant’s issues at the trial High Court.

In reply, the learned counsel to the appellant submitted that the Trial High Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain any question of Islamic Law of succession including whether the

decision of the Sharia Court of Appeal is res judicata or not, see Section 277 (2) (c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). It was argued that the Respondent admitted trespassing on to the Appellant’s farm land for about eight (8) years and unlawfully cultivating same and is therefore not entitled to any refund but, rather the Respondent should be made to pay the Appellant the sum of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) general damages and N4,200,000.00 (Four Million Two Hundred Thousand Naira) special damages for withholding the Appellant’s inherited farm land for seven (7) years, from June 2012 when the farm was distributed to him by Hon. Amila to June, 2019. In addition, N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) for trespass in the year, 2015 which is the subject matter of this appeal. We were urged to invoke our powers under Order 4 Rules 3 and 4, and Order 23 Rule 15 of the Rules of this Court as well as Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, 2010 to order the Respondent to pay the Appellant General and Special Damages of N6,200,000.00 (Six Million, Two Hundred Thousand Naira) for trespass and withholding the appellant’s farm land for seven years.

It was argued that the Appellant and other heirs are satisfied with the distribution in Exhibit A – A14 and they did not appeal against the decision and did not seek for a retrial. Further, that the Respondent admitted in paragraph 18 of the Respondent’s brief of argument that he is not involved in the retrial. Also, that the judgment of Hon. Amila is a bar to a retrial. We were urged to set aside the retrial order made by the Sharia Court of Appeal, Yola and also set aside the judgment of the trial High Court and declare the judgment of Hon Amila as valid and legally binding and order the Respondent to pay the Appellant the sum of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) Special and General Damages claimed. In addition, order the Respondent and his counsel to pay the Appellant the sum of N6,200,000.00 (Six Million Two Hundred Thousand Naira) for trespass and withholding the appellant’s farm land for seven years which he inherited under Islamic Law.

I have examined the issues formulated by the parties; they are similar but, differently worded. I would utilize the issues as formulated by the appellant in determining the appeal. The

Appellant’s issue one challenged the trial high Court’s jurisdiction to convert a civil claim of damages for trespass to civil appeal and proceeded to affirm a judgment earlier set aside by the Sharia Court of Appeal and declaring Exhibit A – A14 an abuse of Court process. It is the writ of summons and statement of claim of the plaintiff that determines the jurisdiction of the Court. Jurisdiction is the power or authority of a Court to adjudicate over a particular subject matter and it is the nature of the claim that has to be considered. See JAMES VS. INEC (2015) 12 NWLR (PT. 1474) 12 NWLR (PT. 1474) PAGE 538 at 597, PARAGRAPHS G – H, SUN INSURANCE NIGERIA PLC VS. UMEZ ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED (2015) 11 NWLR (PT. 1471) PAGE 576 at 604 – 605, PARAS. H – A. It is apt at this point to examine the reliefs sought by the Appellant at the trial High Court. The Appellant as plaintiff sought the following reliefs:
“WHEREOF the plaintiff claims from the Defendant N1,000,000.00k (One Million Naira Only) Special General Damages made up as follows:
(a) Special Damages of N600,0000.00k (Six Hundred

Thousand Naira) for loss of anticipated harvest of 60 (Sixty) bags of rice at N10,000.00k (Ten Thousand Naira) per bag in 2015 farming season;
(b) General Damages of N300,000.00k (Three Hundred Thousand Naira) for trespass, intimidation and threat to life;
(c) N100,000.00k (One Hundred Thousand Naira) cost of this suit;
(d) Any other relief(s) the Honourable Court may deem fit to make.”

The Appellant’s case is that on the demise of his father, he and two other male heirs of his father through the Upper Area Court, Gombi in Suit No. UACG/EST/6/2011 of 8/6/12 shared their father’s farm land to his heirs following which he had been planting rice in his portion. The defendant who had no inheritance from the Appellant’s late father not being heir to his late father claimed ownership of the farm land through the judgment of another Upper Area Court, Gombi in which the Appellant was convicted on 25/9/13. The Appellant served part of the term of imprisonment with no option of fine for trespass. On appeal to the High Court in Suit No: ADSM/28M/2013 of 30/1/14, the Appellant was discharged and acquitted. The Appellant made out

that he did not sell any part of his farm land that he inherited to the defendant or anybody else. The Respondent got judgment in the latter case before the Upper Area Court. On Appeal to the Sharia Court of Appeal, Yola in case No: ADS/SCA/CV/2/YL/204 of 18/11/14 the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and declared the judgment in favour of the Respondent null and void as it was obtained by fraud and a retrial was ordered. As it is, the subsisting judgments are those of the Upper Area Court Gombi of 8/6/12 which shared the farm land of the Appellant’s late father to the Appellant and two other male heirs and the decision of the Sharia Court of Appeal that nullified the judgment obtained by the Respondent.

The crux of the Appellant’s claim can be clearly seen from the averments in his pleadings, paragraphs 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30 – 38. The averments are supported by the evidence of the Appellant. I will hereunder reproduce part of the evidence adduced by the Appellant:
21. That the defendant has contemptuously refused to comply with the valid and subsisting judgment of Hon. Amila which

distributed the said farm land to me and two other heirs. He has also refused to recognize the judgment of the Sharia Court of Appeal, Yola which declared the purported sale of unknown farm land to him by Hon. Adamu’s judgment null and void.
23. That the farm land shared out to me and other heirs by Hon. Amila is a different farm land from the one purportedly sold to the defendant and which sale was declared null and void by the Sharia Court of Appeal Yola;
24. That the defendant is aware of the judgment of Hon. Amila because they were present at the trial. Their counsel U.D. Silas Esq., was also before the Sharia Court of Appeal Yola when the judgment of Hon. Amila was exhibited to prove the level of confusion created by Hon. Adamu’s judgment;
27. That the judgment of Hon. Amila remains valid and subsisting. It has not been set aside or appealed against. That of Hon. Adamu has been set aside and declared null and void by Sharia Court of Appeal, Yola;
30. That I planted rice on one half of the farm land and left the other half for my partner to plant rice;
31. That Defendant wrongfully trespassed into the farm land,

destroyed with herbicide the rice I planted and he planted maize instead claiming the farm belongs to him;
32. That the defendant’s trespass in paragraph 31 above is deliberate because he is aware of Sharia Court of Appeal’s judgment as well as that of Hon. Amila;
33. That on protesting against the trespass, the defendant threatened to cause serious bodily harm to me or anyone who entered the farm;
34. That as a result of the Defendant’s trespass and threats, I and my partner Hassan Isa were prevented from cultivating the farm land in 2015 farming season despite repeated protests and demands;
35. That I normally harvest at least 60 (sixty) bags of rice annually on the said farm land;
36. That as a result of the intimidation and trespass by the Defendant, I have lost 60 (sixty) bags of rice in 2015 farming season;
37. That as a farmer and dealer in farm produce I know as a fact that the price of a bag of rice is N10,000.00 (Ten Thousand Naira);
38. That 60 bags times N10,000.00k amount to N6000,000.00k (Sixty Hundred Thousand Naira);
39. That all efforts to get the Defendant to desist from his acts of

trespass and intimidation proved abortive.”

From the pleadings and evidence of the Appellant, it is clear that the Appellant claimed special damages for the loss of anticipated harvest from the farm for the year 2015, when the Respondent made use of the farm land and general damages for trespass, intimidation and threat to life by the Respondent and cost for the suit. It is not an appeal against the judgment in Exhibit A – A14. At pages 215 – 216, the learned trial judge listed the five ways of proving title to land. The Appellant did not claim title in the reliefs sought at the trial Court. The Respondent did not also claim title vide a counter claim, the Respondent’s duty was only to defend.

decided on the issues properly raised in the pleadings.”
Similarly, in OBMIAMI BRICK & STONE (NIGERIA) LIMITED VS. AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LIMITED (1992) LPELR – 2177 (SC) P. 71, PARA E His Lordship Omo, JSC held thus:
“It is the plaintiff in a case who sets out what he is claiming and his success or failure must be decided on the basis of his claim(s). It is not the duty of the Court to make out a different case for him.”
See OJO – OSAGIE VS. ADONRI (1994) LPELR – 2386 (SC) PP. 19 – 20, PARAS F – A, KAYILI VS.YILBUK & ORS (2015) LPELR – 24323 (SC) P. 52, PARAS. A – F, BANKOLE & ANOR VS. DENAPO & ANOR (2019) LPELR – 46444 (CA) PP. 11 – 12, PARAS. E – A and NBCI VS. INTEGRATED GAS (NIG) LTD (2005) LPELR (2016) 1 at 21 – 22.

The distribution of the estate of the appellant’s late father Shuaibu Adamu was not an issue before the trial High Court which gave rise to this appeal. The Appellant did not appeal against the decision of the Upper Area Court which distributed the estate of his late father to his heirs, the appellant and two

other male members of his family, he did not also appeal against the judgment of the Sharia Court of Appeal in which he was the beneficiary, which declared null and void the judgment in favour of the Respondent. The Respondent did not also appeal against the judgment of the Upper Area Court or the Sharia Court of Appeal.

At pages 217 – 218 of the records of appeal, the trial High Court determined which case was first in time and declared Exhibit A – A14 an abuse of Court process and refused all the reliefs sought by the Appellant, these were not issues before the trial High Court. The decision of the Sharia Court of Appeal was not on appeal before the trial High Court; therefore the Court had no jurisdiction to interpret the said judgment. The trial High Court had no business reviewing the decision of the Sharia Court of Appeal or the decision of the Upper Area Court that shared the estate of the late father of the Appellant to the appellant and other heirs, to which the Respondent was not a beneficiary. At page 200 of the printed records of appeal, the trial High Court in the introductory part of the judgment stated thus:

“When the appeal came up for hearing on the 31/5/2018, the respective learned counsel to the parties adopted their written addresses as their oral arguments/submissions for and against the granting of the plaintiff’s reliefs sought.” (underlining mine for emphasis)

From the above, it is clear that the learned trial judge misunderstood the Appellant’s case. The appellant’s case was not an appeal, the appellant could not have appealed against the judgment of the Sharia Court of Appeal which was in his favour and that set aside the faulted judgment in favour of the Respondent who claimed ownership of part of the Appellant’s father’s estate to which he was not heir to but, shared amongst the heirs of the Appellant’s late father under Islamic Law, Exhibit D – D4. The Respondent did not also appeal against the judgment in Exhibit A – A14, the decision of the Upper Area Court. The trial High Court was wrong to have labeled and considered the Appellant’s case as an appeal. Further, Section 277 (2) (c) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) provides thus:

(2) “For the purposes of Subsection (1) of this Section, the Sharia Court of Appeal shall be competent to decide –
(c) any question of Islamic personal law regarding a wakf, gift, will or succession where the endower, donor, testator or deceased person is a Muslim.”
From the above, the High Court of a State has no jurisdiction to look into the distribution of estate under Islamic law which Exhibit A – A14 relates to. It is only the Sharia Court of Appeal of a state that can entertain any question of Islamic personal law in respect of succession as in the present case. At page 216 of the printed records of appeal, the trial Court recognized the fact that the subject matter before the Sharia Court of Appeal and the Upper Area Court was: “distribution of the estate of late Shuaibu Adamu.” The Lower Court had no power to interfere with the decision of the Sharia Court of Appeal and to affirm the decision of the Upper Area Court, Exhibit D – D4 which had been set aside by the Sharia Court of Appeal, which purported to have sold part of the Appellant’s inherited land to the Respondent for the sum of N150,000.00 (One Hundred

and Fifty Thousand Naira). The Trial High Court was wrong to have reversed the decision of the Sharia Court of Appeal, Yola, Exhibit E – E7 which had set aside Exhibit D – D4. Further, the trial High Court had no jurisdiction to have held Exhibit D – D4 which had been set aside was first in time and supercedes Exhibit A – A14, the decision of the Upper Area Court in which the Appellant’s late father’s estate was distributed to which there is no appeal. The decision of the trial High Court is erroneous and a nullity. See SKENCONSULT (NIG) LTD & ANOR VS. UKEY (1981) LPELR – 3072 (SC) PP. 21 – 22, PARAS. E – C, ZUBAIR VS. KOLAWOLE (2019) LPELR – 46928 (SC) PP. 24 – 25, PARAS. E – B, MADUKOLU VS. NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 SC NLR 341, WAEC VS. ADEYANJU (2008) 9 NWLR (PT. 1092) 270, EGUNJOBI VS. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (supra) and OLOBA VS. AKEREJA (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 84) 508.
Further, the trial High Court and the Sharia Court of Appeal are at par, the High Court had no jurisdiction to set aside or to review a decision of the Sharia Court of Appeal, moreso the decision of the Sharia Court

of Appeal was not on appeal before the trial High Court. See CUSTOMARY COURT OF APPEAL EDO STATE VS. CHIEF (ENGR) E.A. AGUELE & ORS (2017) LPELR – 44632 (SC) PP. 29 – 31, (2017) 6 SC (PT. VII) P. 1; (2018) 3 NWLR (PT. 1607) P. 369, PARAS. B – D, OWUAMA & ORS VS. OBASI & ORS (2010) LPELR – 4371 (CA) PP. 16 – 17, PARAS. D – F. I hold that the Trial High Court acted without jurisdiction when it deviated from the case before it, which is a claim for General and Special Damages for trespass, intimidation and threat to life and not an appeal against the decision of the Sharia Court of Appeal, Exhibit E – E7. The judgment of the trial Court is a nullity. The order setting aside Exhibit A – A14, the decision of the Upper Area Court and affirming Exhibit D – D4 were done without jurisdiction, the orders are hereby set aside. I resolve issue one in favour of the Appellant.

In view of the resolution of issue one, there would be no need to go into issues two and three to determine if the Trial Court was right or wrong in its orders having held that the Trial Court acted without jurisdiction in making

out and deciding a different case from what was put forward by the Appellant for determination.

In sum, I allow the appeal for being meritorious. It is hereby ordered that Suit No: ADSY/154/2017 is remitted back to the Chief Judge of Adamawa State for assignment to another Judge other than A.A. Waziri, J. for trial de novo before another judge.
I award costs of N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) against the Respondent.

JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A.: I read in advance in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother Chidi Nwaoma Uwa JCA.
I agree entirely with my learned brother that the matter be remitted back to the Hon. Chief Judge of Adamawa State for re-assignment to another Judge other than A.A. Waziri J. for trial de novo.
The appeal is allowed.
Appellant is awarded N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) costs to be paid by the Respondent.

ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A.: I agree.

Appearances:

Y. Isa, Esq. For Appellant(s)

D. Silas, Esq. For Respondent(s)