ABDULLAHI v. UKU
(2020)LCN/14920(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(SOKOTO JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Thursday, December 03, 2020
CA/S/151S/2017
RATIO
COURT: WHAT DETERMINES THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT
The jurisdiction of a Court, be it first instance or appellate is determined by the nature of the plaintiff’s claim and the statutory provisions appertaining thereto. Both provide an insight or guide as to the competence of the Court to adjudicate on a matter. See ALHAJI UMARU ABBA TUKUR VS GOVT. OF GONGOLA STATE (1989)9 SCNJ 1. The law is well settled that the issue of jurisdiction of a Court to entertain and determine a matter is of fundamental importance in any judicial proceeding. Of particular importance is the fact that where a Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain not to talk of determine a matter, its entire proceeding regardless of how well it has been conducted would be a nullity. It is further firmly settled that before a Court is competent to entertain and determine a matter placed before it, one of the essential elements for the exercise by the said Court of its jurisdiction is to the effect that the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its conferred jurisdiction. See MADUKOLU VS NKEMDILIM (1962) ALL NLR 587, ENGR. YALAJU-AMAYE VS ASSOCIATED REGISTERED ENGINEERING CO LTD & ORS. (1990) 6 SCNJ 149, C.B.N VS SAP (NIG.) LTD. (2005) 3 NWLR (pt.911) 153. PER TALBA, J.C.A.
COURT: JURISDICTION OF THE SHARIA COURT OF APPEAL
The Sharia Court of Appeal is a creation of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). It is provided for in Section 6 (1) and (5) and Section 275. And Section 277 (1) and (2) of the same Constitution limits its appellate and supervisory jurisdiction in civil proceedings involving questions of Islamic personal law. The jurisdiction of the Sharia Court of Appeal is constitutional having been prescribed by Section 277 (2) (a)-(e) of the Constitution, its confined and limited to all questions of Islamic personal law regarding a marriage concluded in accordance with the law, including a question relating to the validity or dissolution of such a marriage or question that depends on such a marriage and relating to family relationship of an infant. And any question of Islamic personal law regarding Waqf, gift, will or succession where the endower donor, testator or deceased person is Muslim. And any question of Islamic personal law regarding infant, prodigal or person of unsound, mind who is a Muslim or the maintenance or the guardianship of a Muslim who is physically or mentally infirm. And all other cases where the parties have requested the Court of first instance to determine the case in accordance with Islamic Personal law.
Consequent to the above provision of the constitution, the Sharia Court of Appeal of a state has no business in entertaining a matter that is not related to Islamic personal law. This Court and indeed the apex Court have held in a plethora of cases that once a case did not fall within the ambit of Section 277 (2), (a)-(e) of the Constitution, the Sharia Court of Appeal lacked the jurisdiction to hear and determine the case. See the following cases:
ASAYAYAH VS ASAYAYAH (2014) 2 SQLR (pt.1) 51
FURFURI VS RAWAYYAH (2008) ALL FWLR (pt.401) 1000.
MOGAJI VS MATARI (2000) 8 NWLR (pt.670) 722.
USMAN VS KAREEM (1995)2 NWLR (pt.379) 537.
GAMBO VS TUKUJI (1997) 10 NWLR (pt.526) 591. PER TALBA, J.C.A.
Before Our Lordships:
Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel Justice of the Court of Appeal
Frederick Oziakpono Oho Justice of the Court of Appeal
Abubakar Mahmud Talba Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
SHUAIBU ABDULLAHI APPELANT(S)
And
ALH. HALADU NA UKU RESPONDENT(S)
ABUBAKAR MAHMUD TALBA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the Sharia Court of Appeal Gusau, Zamfara State, in suit No: SCA/MA/86/2016 delivered on the 14th day of March, 2017.
The case started from the upper Sharia Court Magami where the respondent sued the appellant claiming 170 bags of guinea corn. The appellant and the respondent had an agreement wherein the respondent gave the appellant 110 cartons of insecticide while the appellant will give to the respondent four (4) bags of guinea corn on each carton of insecticide, at the end of the year after harvesting food crops. Out of the 110 cartons of insecticide, the appellant gave to the respondent 270 bags of guinea corn. The respondent therefore claimed the balance of 170 bags of guinea corn from the appellant.
After hearing, the Upper Sharia Court gave judgment in favour of the respondent and ordered the appellant to give to the respondent 166 bags of guinea corn.
Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the appellant appealed to the Sharia Court of Appeal Gusau (herein referred to as the lower Court). The lower
1
Court affirmed the decision of the trial Court. And being further aggrieved by the decision of the lower Court, the appellant appealed to this Court vide a notice of appeal filed on the 13th day of April, 2017 with one ground of appeal. The ground of appeal is thus;
Ground of Appeal.
The Court below erred in law which error gravely occasioned miscarriage of justice when it assumed jurisdiction over the matter between the parties to this appeal which borders wholly on commercial transaction
Particulars
1. The respondent sued the applicant before the trial Court (Upper Sharia Court Magami) to recover 168 bags of guinea corn or its monetary value.
2. The trial Court found in favour of the respondent and ordered the appellant to produce the said 168 bags of guinea corn or its monetary value.
3. Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellant appealed to Sharia Court of Appeal Gusau which affirmed the trial Court’s decision.
4. Dissatisfied with the decision of the Sharia Court of Appeal Gusau, the appellant appealed to this Hon. Court.
5. The jurisdiction of Sharia Court of Appeal is limited to matters set out enumerated under
2
Section 277 CFRN 1999 (as amended).
At the hearing of the appeal on the 28th day of September, 2020 parties were absent and no appearance of counsel. The Court Registrar informed the Court that both appellant and the respondent were duly served with a hearing notice via SMS. The appellant filed his brief of argument on 27th day of October, 2017. The respondent did not file any brief of argument.
Pursuant to Order 19 Rule 9 (4) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016, the appeal was deemed as having been duly argued. From the sole ground of appeal, the appellant distilled one issue for determination thus;
Whether the lower Court (Sharia Court of appeal Gusau) has jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the trial Court (Upper Sharia Court Magami).
While arguing the appeal in his brief, the appellants counsel submitted that the lower Court lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate over the subject matter which has to do with commercial transaction buying and selling of insecticide and not question of Islamic personal law. He cited Section 277 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). And
3
the case of OGUNDE VS GATEWAY TRANSIT LTD (2010) 8 NWLR (pt.1196) 307 @ 313 paragraph where UWA JCA stated thus;
“Jurisdiction is a radical and crucial question of competence. This is because if the Court has no jurisdiction to hear a case, the proceeding are and remain nullity however well conducted as brilliantly decided.”
See also AROWOLO VS ADESINA (2011) 2 NWLR (pt.1231) 315 and DAVID VS JOLAYEMI (2011) 11 NWLR (pt.1258) 320.
Learned counsel urged the Court to resolve the sole issue in favour of the Appellant and to allow the appeal.
The jurisdiction of a Court, be it first instance or appellate is determined by the nature of the plaintiff’s claim and the statutory provisions appertaining thereto. Both provide an insight or guide as to the competence of the Court to adjudicate on a matter. See ALHAJI UMARU ABBA TUKUR VS GOVT. OF GONGOLA STATE (1989)9 SCNJ 1. The law is well settled that the issue of jurisdiction of a Court to entertain and determine a matter is of fundamental importance in any judicial proceeding. Of particular importance is the fact that where a Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain not to talk of
4
determine a matter, its entire proceeding regardless of how well it has been conducted would be a nullity. It is further firmly settled that before a Court is competent to entertain and determine a matter placed before it, one of the essential elements for the exercise by the said Court of its jurisdiction is to the effect that the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its conferred jurisdiction. See MADUKOLU VS NKEMDILIM (1962) ALL NLR 587, ENGR. YALAJU-AMAYE VS ASSOCIATED REGISTERED ENGINEERING CO LTD & ORS. (1990) 6 SCNJ 149, C.B.N VS SAP (NIG.) LTD. (2005) 3 NWLR (pt.911) 153.
The Sharia Court of Appeal is a creation of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). It is provided for in Section 6 (1) and (5) and Section 275. And Section 277 (1) and (2) of the same Constitution limits its appellate and supervisory jurisdiction in civil proceedings involving questions of Islamic personal law. The jurisdiction of the Sharia Court of Appeal is constitutional having been prescribed by Section 277 (2) (a)-(e) of the Constitution, its
5
confined and limited to all questions of Islamic personal law regarding a marriage concluded in accordance with the law, including a question relating to the validity or dissolution of such a marriage or question that depends on such a marriage and relating to family relationship of an infant. And any question of Islamic personal law regarding Waqf, gift, will or succession where the endower donor, testator or deceased person is Muslim. And any question of Islamic personal law regarding infant, prodigal or person of unsound, mind who is a Muslim or the maintenance or the guardianship of a Muslim who is physically or mentally infirm. And all other cases where the parties have requested the Court of first instance to determine the case in accordance with Islamic Personal law.
Consequent to the above provision of the constitution, the Sharia Court of Appeal of a state has no business in entertaining a matter that is not related to Islamic personal law. This Court and indeed the apex Court have held in a plethora of cases that once a case did not fall within the ambit of Section 277 (2), (a)-(e) of the Constitution, the Sharia Court of Appeal lacked the
6
jurisdiction to hear and determine the case. See the following cases:
ASAYAYAH VS ASAYAYAH (2014) 2 SQLR (pt.1) 51
FURFURI VS RAWAYYAH (2008) ALL FWLR (pt.401) 1000.
MOGAJI VS MATARI (2000) 8 NWLR (pt.670) 722.
USMAN VS KAREEM (1995)2 NWLR (pt.379) 537.
GAMBO VS TUKUJI (1997) 10 NWLR (pt.526) 591.
In this instant case, it is crystal clear that the respondent’s claim before the trial Court is not related to any question of Islamic personal law. And therefore, the lower Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal. The lone issue is resolved in favour of the appellant. The Judgment of the Sharia Court of Appeal Gusau, Zamfara State in suit No: SCA/MA/86/2016, delivered on the 14th day of March, 2017 is set aside.
No order for cost.
ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, J.C.A.: I have had the advantage of reading before now the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Talba, JCA. I fully agree with his reasoning and conclusion that this appeal is meritorious and ought to be allowed. I abide by all the consequential orders in the lead judgment.
7
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, J.C.A.: I read the draft of the judgment just delivered by my Learned Brother – ABUBAKAR M. TALBA – JCA and I am in agreement with his reasoning and conclusion in allowing the Appeal.
I abide by all the consequential orders made thereto.
8
Appearances:
S. Muhammed, Esq. For Appellant(s)
Dan Sadau village Zamfara State For Respondent(s)
