IBRAHIM GAMBO v. AUWALU ALI DOKA
(2016)LCN/8319(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 18th day of March, 2016
CA/K/254/2015
RATIO
ISLAMIC LAW: THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF HAUZI, ITS APPLICATION EFFECT AND EXCEPTION TO THE PRINCIPLE
The general principle of hauzi, its application and effect have been espoused in a litany of decided cases by the Court, especially in Ummaru v. Bakoshi (2000) 2 NWLR (pt. 646) P. 690 @ 701, Baba v. Aruwa (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt. 44) P. 774 @ 786 and Hada v. Malumfashi (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 303) P; wherein this Court per Coomasie J.C.A (as he then was) said:
“In Islamic Law, where a person has been in peaceful enjoyment or possession of land without challenge for 10 years he thereby acquires a title by Hauzi (Prescription) against any person who claims to be the true or original owner of such land and who stood by without taking any action to reclaim his land during that period. Put more clearly, a person who sees somebody in possession of his or her property and claiming and using the same as his own over a long period without any objection from (the true owner) loses his ownership and that other person in possession becomes the owner.”
The learned justice went further to enumerate the exceptions to the general principles of law regarding hauzi and stated that:
“Generally, where a person has been in undisturbed possession of real property for 10 years without opposition from the true owner he acquires ownership.
However, this principle of Hauzi (prescription) under Islamic law Permits of exceptions:
(a) Cogent reasons are adduced for not complaining in time, for example blood relationship or fear of harm from authority;
(b) The claimant is a minor;
(c) The person in possession was put in possession by the claimant either as a free or paying tenant;
(d) The person in possession is put in possession as a trustee;
(e) The claimant is a relative, or a partner or co-proprietor to the person in possession; and
(f) In the case of a house, the possessor is in permissive occupancy.
Again, where a claimant has not been in the town or village claimant is not residing with the person in possession or where the claimant has travelled out or he was in a state of incommunicado, then, the principles of Hauzi cannot be used to deprive him or her of his or her property. It is also accepted by Islamic jurists in the famous s that where there is evidence that the claimant is a female and has been in marriage bounds throughout the period of Hauzi, and also that her husband would not allow her to come out of the matrimonial home to pursue her case or he will not allow his wife to sponsor or appoint a Wakili i. e. Representative to challenge the person in possession, then if later she comes out and claims the ownership of such land, her claim will be entertained notwithstanding that the person claiming Hauzi has been in undisturbed possession of the land for such a long period. See Ihkanul Ahkam, short commentary on Tuhfatul refer to the book of Hashiyatd Dusuki Vol. 4 P.235″.
In Nasi v. Haruna (2002) 2 NWLR (Pt.750) P.240 @ 249 Okunola J.C.A (of blessed memory) had this to say on the principle of hauzi in Islamic law:
“Under Islamic law, the issue of “hauzi” (prescription) does not affect a property in the possession of another, no matter how long such property is in his possession, if it is on loan, pledge or for safe-keeping. In such a situation, the defence of prescription is not open to the defendant. In the instant case, since the disputed farmlands were entrusted to the district Head by the respondent’s father for safe-keeping, the trust defeats the defence of “hauzi” relied upon by the appellant”. per. IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA, J.C.A.
APPEAL: THE DUTY OF A PARTY CHALLENGING THE AUTHENTICITY OF PROCEEDINGS OF COURT ON APPEAL
A party challenging the authenticity or correction of a record of proceedings of Court on appeal can do so by filing an affidavit. In Agbeotu v. Prisibe (2005) All FWLR (Pt.257) P.145 @ 1481, this Court dealing with similar issue held on page 482 that:
“When a party intends to challenge the correctness of the record of proceeding, the normal procedure is for that party to swear to an affidavit challenging the said record of proceedings. It is his duty to set out the facts or part of the proceedings which is wrongly stated in the records or what happened during the proceedings, which is not included in the proceedings by the trial Court. This affidavit will then be served on the trial Judge and/or registrar of the Court and also on the counsel on the other side. When they are served, it is entirely up to them to file the counter- affidavit affirming that what was recorded by the trial Judge is correct and that it reflects exactly what took place during the proceedings.” per. IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
IBMHIM GAMBO Appellant(s)
AND
AUWALU ALI DOKA Respondent(s)
IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):This is an appeal emanating from the appellate Section of the High Court of Justice Kano State (the lower Court) delivered on the 25th of September, 2013 affirming the decision of the Upper Sharia Court (the trial Court) delivered on the 30th of March, 2012. The facts of the case are that the respondent who was the plaintiff at the trial Court claimed ownership of the parcel of land in dispute on the ground that his father gave it to the father of the appellant (defendant at the trial Court), some fifty (50) years ago on loan. However, the appellant claimed that the said parcel of land had been in their possession for more than 50 years, therefore, the doctrine of HAUZI (prescription) applied conferring title to the parcel of land on him. The litigation over the parcel of land was commenced before the Kano Sharia Court. The Kano Sharia Court delivered judgment in favour of the appellant. On appeal to the upper Sharia Court, Kofar Kudu, Kano city, the judgment of the Kano Sharia Court was affirmed. On further appeal to the High Court that Court allowed the appeal and the
judgments of the two lower Courts were set aside. The High Court ordered for a retrial before the Bompai upper Sharia Court, Kano. The Bompai upper Sharia Court after hearing of the case entered judgment in favour of the respondent. The appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment of the Upper Sharia Court, he therefore appealed to the High Court. The High Court upheld the decision of the Bompai Upper Sharia Court. The appellant did not agree with that judgment, hence his appeal to this Court, vide a Notice and grounds of appeal filed on the 16th of July, 2015 on eight (8) grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal, without their particulars are as follows:
“Ground 1
The lower appellate Court erred in law which occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice by affirming the decision of the trial Sharia Court, which denied the appellant fair hearing.
Ground 2
The lower appellate Court erred in law which occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice by affirming the decision of the
trial Sharia Court for calling the appellant to take an oath after it is convinced hundred percent that the respondent is a victim of hauzy (statute barred) that is to say the appellant is entitled to the land for being in possession of it for more than 50 years in presence of the respondent and without any challenge and no reason adduced to exonerate the respondent from that liability.
Ground 3
The lower appellate Court erred in law which occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice by affirming the decision of lower trial Sharia Court, when it neglected to admit oath on the respondent when it adjudged that the respondent must take an oath before he gets the judgment, as the appellant did not take it that is to my the oath reverses to the respondent.
Ground 4
The lower appellate Court erred in law which occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice, holding that the appellant did not file a counter affidavit, when same had been dully filed and served on both the respondent
and the Court.
Ground 5
The lower appellate Court erred in law which occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice by holding another affidavit as uncontroverted one, when same was not served on the adverse party.
Ground 6
The lower appellate Court erred in law which occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice by holding an affidavit evidence to supersede or substitute or alter the content of a record of proceeding of a Court of law.
Ground 7
The lower appellate Court erred in law, which occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice by approbating and re-probating at the same trial.
Ground 8
The lower appellate Court erred in law, which occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice by trying a case on which it has no jurisdiction.”
?The appellant sought the following reliefs
from this Court, in the event the appeal succeeds:
“1. An order of this Hon. Court setting aside- the decision of both lower appellate and the trial Sharia Courts, by restoring possession of the subject matter to the appellant, or alternatively.
2. An order of this Hon. Court setting aside the decision of the lower appellate Court and order the Sharia Court of Appeal to hear the appeal against the decision of the trial Sharia Court.
3. Any such further order(s) as this Hon. Court deems fit to make in the circumstance(s) of this appeal”.
The appellant’s brief of argument was filed on the 12th of August, 2015 wherein eight (8) issues have been formulated from the eight (8) grounds of appeal. See pages 1 to 2 of the brief of argument. The respondent filed his brief of argument on the 11th of September, 2015, where the issues are contained on pages 1 – 2 of the appellant’s brief of argument have adopted. The eight (8) issues contained on page 1-2 of the appellant’s brief of argument are hereunder compressed in to 5 issues for brevity, precisely and comprehensiveness for the resolution and ultimate
determination of the appeal itself.
“(i) Whether the lower Court, (the Kano State High Court) had the jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal when the subject matter of the dispute is governed by Islamic personal law being an inheritance matter?
(ii) Whether the failure of the trial Court to rule on the objection raised by the appellant which the lower Court refused to consider it, tantamount to denial of fair hearing?
(iii) Whether it is necessary to adduce evidence or oath taking where the plea of hauzi (prescription) has been established under Islamic law?
(iv) Whether the lower trial Court was right when it affirmed the decision of the trial Court in granting title to the disputed land to the respondent without taking oath when the appellant declined doing so?
(v) Whether the appellant filed a counter-affidavit in response to the affidavit filed by the respondent in support of the challenge to the authenticity or correctness of the record of appeal transmitted from the trial Court to the lower Court?”
?RESOLUTION OF
ISSUES
ISSUE 1
Whether the lower Court, being a State High Court of Justice, has the jurisdiction to hear and determine a dispute the subject matter of which is governed by Islamic Personal Law? Usman Esq. of learned counsel who settled the appellant’s brief of argument, contended that it is only a Sharia Court of law that has the jurisdiction to hear and determine any suit the subject matter of which is governed by Islamic Personal Law. Sections 272 and 277 of the 1999 Constitution (amended), cited and relied on to buttress the submissions supra.
Learned counsel referred to page 11 of the record of the proceedings before the trial and the lower Courts and submitted that the claim before the said Courts as stated is inheritance of land, which by the Sharia Court civil procedure Rules 2000, the filing fee is N100, which has been paid by the claimant, as against the payment of 5% percent of the value of the property in other civil claims. Order 24 of the said Rules, 2000 and the schedule thereto dealing with scale of charges cited are relied on to reinforce the submissions supra. It has been further contended that
since the claim before the trial Court and the lower Court involved inheritance, which is governed by Islamic personal law, this Court lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate and determine same. That any proceedings conducted and judgment delivered without jurisdiction, no matter how well conducted, is a nullity. The case of Abubakar & 2 Ors v. Hasamu & 5 Ors (2012) vol. 2 – 3 MJSC P. 1014 cited to reinforce the submissions supra. The Court has been urged to hold that the lower Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal before it, that any decision taken by it is null and void, liable to be set aside in law. Counsel did urge the Court to so hold, and resolve issue 1 in favour of the appellant.
Ibrahim Esq., of learned counsel to the respondent contended that it is the plaintiff’s statement of claim that determines the jurisdiction of a Court of law. That the claim of the respondent as plaintiff at the trial Court was for possession of land, not inheritance as erroneously canvassed by the appellant. Counsel referred to page 11 of the printed record of appeal where the claim of the respondent at the trial Court has been stated to
buttress the submission supra. As to when a claim before a Court of law is one of inheritance or succession, counsel cited and relied on the case of Garba v. Dogon Yaro (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 66) P. 102 @ 111 to reinforce the submission supra. The Court has been urged to find and hold that the claim of the respondent (as plaintiff) at the trial Court was not for inheritance nor succession to property which qualifies as Islamic Personal Law. That Issue 1 be resolved against the appellant.
On page 11 of the printed record of appeal, the claim of the respondent (as plaintiff) at the trial Court (where the suit by the respondent, was instituted) was for possession of land: See page 11 of the printed record of appeal where the claim of the respondent has been stated thus:
“My claim is that I want the Court to collect plot of land of Alh. Auwalu Doka Yalwa which he inherited from his father, Malam Mamman (sic) which land is now with the plaintiff, the land in dispute is situated at Doka Yalwa in Rano Local Government Area.”
In the case of Garba v. Dogon Yaro (1991) 1 NWLR (pt. 65) P.102 @ 111, this Court per Okunola, J.C.A (of blessed memory)
enumerated what claim for inheritance or succession (which are of Islamic Personal law) to be as follows:
“Before a dispute could become a question regarding the issue of succession in order to confer jurisdiction on Sharia Courts, it must make succession an issue. Thus, the instances in which issue or dispute could be made a subject of succession as envisaged by Section 242 (2) (c) of the 1979 Constitution includes the followings: viz –
(a) A dispute over the failure to distribute the estate after the death of the deceased.
(b) A dispute over the devolution of the estate between the heirs.
(c) A dispute over any heritable estate which any person withholds away from the heirs.
(d) A dispute over the right to make a particular property within the estate.
(e) A dispute over a gift or will of a particular property said to have been made by the deceased in his
lifetime.
(f) A dispute over payment of a debt marred by the deceased in his life time from the estate he or she had left behind.
(g) A dispute over the exclusion of an heir from
inheriting from the estate. And all such dispute which can be attributed to the estate succession.”
An examination of the claim of the respondent (as plaintiff) before the trial Court clearly was not for inheritance nor succession involving Islamic Personal Law, which the lower Court would not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate same. Consequently, issue 1 is hereby resolved against the appellant.
ISSUE 2
Whether the failure of the trial Court to rule on the objection raised by the appellant tantamount to denial of fair hearing. Usman Esq. contended that a Court of law is under duty to consider and rule on any objection to an issue raised by any of the parties before proceeding thereafter with the hearing of the case. The case of Newswatch Communications v. Alfa APRL (2006) SCNJ (P.282) @ 297 cited and relied on. That the appellant, at the trial Court raised the issue of the suit being statute barred by reason of Hauzi (prescription) but that was not resolved by that Court. That the lower Court was under duty to have resolved the issue in the appeal before it, but neglected to do so. Counsel urged that issue 2 be resolved in
favour of the appellant.
On this issue, Ibrahim Esq., of learned counsel to the respondent, contended that there was no objection raised at the trial Court on the suit being statute barred, rather the objection raised was on the competence of a witness called to testify before that Court. No ruling was reserved as could been seen. Learned counsel contended that the record of appeal contains a ruling on pages 26 – 27 on the objection to witnesses called by the respondent. In view of the foregoing, it has been urged on this Court to resolve and hold that the trial Court ruled on the objection raised before it. That issue 2 be resolved against the appellant.
On page 26-27 of the printed record of appeal, a ruling was delivered when the case came up for hearing on the 5th of October 2011. This is what have been recorded:
“On 14/08/2011 the plaintiff Auwalu Ali Doka Yalwa institute an action on, file no 144/11 where his claim is for a plot of land at doka yalwa which he said he inherited it from his father Ali and in his affidavit he stated that he has instituted this matter in Upper Shariah Court Kofar Kudu and we Appeal,?the Court of Appeal
gave us the right to go to any Court with jurisdiction and file the matter that is why I came to Upper Shariah Court Bompai. The plaintiff has given description of the boundaries he claimed. From there the Court now asked the defendant and he object to the plaintiff’s claim and held inter alia that the plot of land belongs to his father.
Hearing the objection by the defendant the Court asked the plaintiff whether he has witnesses to his claim. And where he presented four (4) witnesses to his claim. 1st witness Usman Dausne Kara & Ors?has gave the boundaries of the land and he said the land belongs to Mallam Mammam and he borrowed Mallam Ya’u and today Mallam Mammam is dead for almost 30 years at the?end, he said his mother and the plaintiff’s mother are of the same mother. The Court has discountenanced his evidence.”
The contention of the appellant that no ruling was delivered on the objection raised at the trial Court, which the lower Court over-looked, cannot be correct in view of what have been recorded on pages 26 – 27 of printed record of appeal, supra. Issue 2 is resolved against the appellant.
?ISSUES 3 AND
4
Issue 3 deals with the requirement of taking oath where the defence of hauzi (prescription) has been raised. Issue 4 deals with the affirmation of the trial Court when it granted the right of possession and title to the disputed parcel of land when the respondent declined to take oath as required by law. Usman Esq., contended that where the plea of hauzi (prescription) has been successful, there is no need for calling of evidence or taking of oath by the other party to the dispute. On issue 3, learned counsel submitted that where an adverse party refuses to take oath where it is necessary to prove a claim, a Court of law cannot waive same. That where both parties refuse to take oath the Court is to give judgment to them to jointly own the property in dispute.
Ibrahim Esq., for the respondent submitted that the general principles of law on hauzi have been enumerated in the case of Ummaru v. Bakoshi (2000) 2 NWLR (pt. 646) p. 690 @ 701, but that there are exceptions to these general principles of law. That in the case at the trial Court which went up to the lower Court, the general principles of hauzi was not applicable in view of the
evidence adduced on how the land in dispute was loaned or given on loan to the appellant’s father. On the exceptions to the general principles of hauzi, counsel cited and relied on the cases of Ummaru v. Bakoshi supra P. 702, Baba v. Aruwa (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt. 44) P.774 @ 786 and Hada v. Malumfashi (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.303).
The general principle of hauzi, its application and effect have been espoused in a litany of decided cases by the Court, especially in Ummaru v. Bakoshi (2000) 2 NWLR (pt. 646) P. 690 @ 701, Baba v. Aruwa (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt. 44) P. 774 @ 786 and Hada v. Malumfashi (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 303) P; wherein this Court per Coomasie J.C.A (as he then was) said:
“In Islamic Law, where a person has been in peaceful enjoyment or possession of land without challenge for 10 years he thereby acquires a title by Hauzi (Prescription) against any person who claims to be the true or original owner of such land and who stood by without taking any action to reclaim his land during that period. Put more clearly, a person who sees somebody in possession of his or her property and claiming and using the same as his own over a long period without any
objection from (the true owner) loses his ownership and that other person in possession becomes the owner.”
The learned justice went further to enumerate the exceptions to the general principles of law regarding hauzi and stated that:
“Generally, where a person has been in undisturbed possession of real property for 10 years without opposition from the true owner he acquires ownership.
However, this principle of Hauzi (prescription) under Islamic law Permits of exceptions:
(a) Cogent reasons are adduced for not complaining in time, for example blood relationship or fear of harm from authority;
(b) The claimant is a minor;
(c) The person in possession was put in possession by the claimant either as a free or paying tenant;
(d) The person in possession is put in possession as a trustee;
(e) The claimant is a relative, or a partner or co-proprietor to the person in possession; and
(f) In the case of a house, the possessor is in permissive occupancy.
Again, where a claimant has not been in the town or village claimant
is not residing with the person in possession or where the claimant has travelled out or he was in a state of incommunicado, then, the principles of Hauzi cannot be used to deprive him or her of his or her property. It is also accepted by Islamic jurists in the famous s that where there is evidence that the claimant is a female and has been in marriage bounds throughout the period of Hauzi, and also that her husband would not allow her to come out of the matrimonial home to pursue her case or he will not allow his wife to sponsor or appoint a Wakili i. e. Representative to challenge the person in possession, then if later she comes out and claims the ownership of such land, her claim will be entertained notwithstanding that the person claiming Hauzi has been in undisturbed possession of the land for such a long period. See Ihkanul Ahkam, short commentary on Tuhfatul refer to the book of Hashiyatd Dusuki Vol. 4 P.235”.
In Nasi v. Haruna (2002) 2 NWLR (Pt.750) P.240 @ 249 Okunola J.C.A (of blessed memory) had this to say on the principle of hauzi in Islamic law:
“Under Islamic law, the issue of “hauzi” (prescription) does
not affect a property in the possession of another, no matter how long such property is in his possession, if it is on loan, pledge or for safe-keeping. In such a situation, the defence of prescription is not open to the defendant. In the instant case, since the disputed farmlands were entrusted to the district Head by the respondent’s father for safe-keeping, the trust defeats the defence of “hauzi” relied upon by the appellant”.
The evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 at the trial Court per pages 28 to 35 of the printed record of appeal have shown that the land in dispute was given to the appellant’s father on loan. Therefore, the claims of the respondent before the trial Court was not governed by the general principles of hauzi, but falls within the exception thereto. The learned judges of the lower Court, were therefore right in affirming the judgment of the trial Court when their lordships held on pages 16-17 of the printed record of appeal thus:
“The respondent had at the lower Court called two witnesses who loan it to the father of the appellant.
The testimonies of these two witnesses were ever discredited or destroyed. The
assertion of the respondent therefore is proved under the Islamic Law (See the case of Nasi V. Haruna cited (supra) and Hada v. Malumfashi (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.3031). That being the case, we hereby hold that the appellant cannot have judgment in his favour on the principles of prescription known as Hauzi alone.
The law under the Islamic Law is very clear. Where the witnesses or evidence of the parties are on the same footing equally balanced or even the same nature as in this case, the Court will offer the oath of affirmation of its claim to the person in possession. Zoo Yadi. If he subscribes to it there and then the judgment would be entered in his favour. If he rejects it or turns it down, the same oath will be offered to the other party and then if the latter takes it, the Court will give him judgment.
(See the case of Ummaru v. Bakoshi cited supra). This was exactly what the judge/lower Court did placing reliance on Maiyaratul-Fasi-Shrhum Tufa Book No. 2 Page 164.
From the record pages 32-33, it is very clear that the Court had asked the Appellant to take an oath which he rejected and even asked the Court to let the
plaintiff take an oath and let the buildings erected by him thereon be valued and let plaintiff pay him the cement. And the appellant went on and took the oath. Thereafter, the house was valued and the land with the building thereon was given to the Respondent while the value of the building was given to the appellant. We hereby hold therefore that the decision of the lower Court is the right decision under the circumstance”.
I find no reason to disagree with the decision of the judges of the lower Court, reproduced supra. I resolve issue 3 and 4 against the appellant.
ISSUE 5
Whether the appellant filed a counter affidavit against the respondent’s affidavit challenging the record of the proceedings of the trial Court before the lower Court. On this issue, Usman Esq., contended that the respondent filed an affidavit challenging the transmitted record of appeal of the trial Sharia Court to the lower Court. Counsel contended that the lower Court’s decision that no counter affidavit was filed by any of the parties cannot be correct. That by so holding, the lower Court arrived at a erroneous decision, which should be set aside
by this Court.
A party challenging the authenticity or correction of a record of proceedings of Court on appeal can do so by filing an affidavit. In Agbeotu v. Prisibe (2005) All FWLR (Pt.257) P.145 @ 1481, this Court dealing with similar issue held on page 482 that:
“When a party intends to challenge the correctness of the record of proceeding, the normal procedure is for that party to swear to an affidavit challenging the said record of proceedings. It is his duty to set out the facts or part of the proceedings which is wrongly stated in the records or what happened during the proceedings, which is not included in the proceedings by the trial Court. This affidavit will then be served on the trial Judge and/or registrar of the Court and also on the counsel on the other side.
When they are served, it is entirely up to them to file the counter- affidavit affirming that what was recorded by the trial Judge is correct and that it reflects exactly what took place during the proceedings.”
The finding and decision of the lower Court supra, that the appellant did not file a counter affidavit in response to the affidavit of the
respondent filed in support of the challenge to the correctness of the record of appeal cannot be faulted. I find no justifiable reason to interfere with same.
Issue 5 is resolve against the appellant.
Having resolved all the issues, that is issues 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 against the appellant, the appeal fails. Same is hereby dismissed for lacking in merit. The judgment of the lower Court delivered on the 25th of September 2013, in appeal No. K/23A/13 is hereby affirmed. The respondent is entitled to costs, assessed at N30,000.00. Same is awarded to him accordingly.
UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.C.A.:I have had the privilege of reading in draft the judgment of my learned brother, Ibrahim S. Bdliya, JCA just delivered.
?I agree entirely with the views expressed that the appeal lacks merit and for the comprehensive reasons given in the lead judgment which I adopt as mine, I too dismiss the appeal as lacking in merit. I abide by the consequential order made including orders as to costs.
OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A.:
I have had the privilege of reading before
now the judgment just delivered by my learned brother Ibrahim Shata Bdliya JCA. His Lordship has ably set out the facts leading to the present appeal, and the laws applicable to the issues in determination.
I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that this appeal lacks merit.
?I also affirm the judgment of the lower Court with costs, as awarded, of N30,000 in favour of the Respondent.
Appearances
Dalhatu Shehu Usman Esq.For Appellant
AND
Magaji Mato Ibrahim Esq.For Respondent
