DANMUSA v. KAURARE
(2022)LCN/16369(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(SOKOTO JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Wednesday, March 16, 2022
CA/S/96S/2020
Before Our Lordships:
Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel Justice of the Court of Appeal
Saidu Tanko Hussaini Justice of the Court of Appeal
Mohammed Danjuma Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
BELLO ZAKI DANMUSA APPELANT(S)
And
MAGAJI ALIYU KAURARE RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO:
THE SETTING AND THE NATURE OF DISPUTE BETWEEN PARTIES
It is beyond contestation therefore that the dispute between the appellant and the respondent herein relate to the right, use and ownership of the farmland in dispute between the parties.
That was the setting and indeed the nature of the dispute between the parties when the Sharia Court of Appeal assumed jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the decision of Upper Sharia Court. The Sharia Court of Appeal, unfortunately heard the appeal and set aside the decision of the Upper Sharia Court which heard the case on the merits.
Given the claim at the trial Court, the decision of which led to the appeal at the Upper Sharia Court, the Sharia Court of Appeal, i.e. the Court below was divested from the exercise of jurisdiction in the matter let alone to sit over such matters to which the claim relate only to ownership of land or associated rights to the use of such land by virture of Section 277(1)(2) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). SAIDU TANKO HUSSAINI, J.C.A.
SAIDU TANKO HUSSAINI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appellant has appealed to this Court vide the Amended Notice of Appeal of which he filed on the 23rd March, 2021 and the same deemed in this Court as properly filed and served on the 29th October, 2021. The appeal is against the decision or Judgment delivered at the Sharia Court of Appeal sitting at Birnin Kebbi on the 7th July, 2020. The grounds of complaint are specified in the Amended Notice of Appeal stating that the Sharia Court of Appeal was in error to assume jurisdiction and thus decided the appeal brought before it on a matter which did not involve questions of Islamic Personal Law.
By the particulars of error which accompany the ground of appeal, it is alleged that the dispute between the appellant and the respondent related to ownership of farmland which the trial Sharia Court confirmed ownership to Bello Zaki, the defendant at that Court, after taking the evidence of the parties thereto, the Upper Sharia Court Birnin Kebbi to which an appeal was lodged, affirmed the decision of Sharia Court, Masama hence the Upper Sharia Court further confirmed the ownership of the land indispute to the Respondent, Bello Zaki. That decision was made or given on the 13th August, 2020.
Magaji Aliyu Kaurare, displeased with the decision/judgement of the Upper Sharia Court appealed to the Sharia Court of Appeal, Birnin Kebbi.
It is beyond contestation therefore that the dispute between the appellant and the respondent herein relate to the right, use and ownership of the farmland in dispute between the parties.
That was the setting and indeed the nature of the dispute between the parties when the Sharia Court of Appeal assumed jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the decision of Upper Sharia Court. The Sharia Court of Appeal, unfortunately heard the appeal and set aside the decision of the Upper Sharia Court which heard the case on the merits.
Given the claim at the trial Court, the decision of which led to the appeal at the Upper Sharia Court, the Sharia Court of Appeal, i.e. the Court below was divested from the exercise of jurisdiction in the matter let alone to sit over such matters to which the claim relate only to ownership of land or associated rights to the use of such land by virture of Section 277(1)(2) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
That provision limits the jurisdiction of the Sharia Court of Appeal to matters relating to Islamic Personal Law only. Claim to ownership of land does not fail within the category of items or matters which the Sharia Court of Appeal can adjudicate upon under Section 277(2) of the Constitution as done at the Court below did hence the appeal to this Court for this reason, has considerable merit and same is allowed. The judgment of the Sharia Court of Appeal, Birnin Kebbi is accordingly hereby set aside and in its place is entered this judgment.
Ordered accordingly.
ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, J.C.A.: I agree.
MOHAMMED DANJUMA, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft, the lead judgment of my learned brother Sa’iduTankoHussaini JCA. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion that the appeal has considerable merit and same is allowed. I abide by all the consequential orders in the lead judgment.
Appearances:
Abubakar Ibrahim, Esq., with him, Ibrahim Jibril, Esq., Hamza Umar Gade, Esq., Yusuf Muhammad, Esq. and Aisha Abdulmumin, Esq.For Appellant(s)
Not represented. For Respondent(s)
