AMADU ALH. DANTANI v. ALH. BALA P. L
(2018)LCN/12258(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 7th day of December, 2018
CA/S/111S/2016
RATIO
APPEAL: WHETHER AN APPELLATE COURT CAN INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER COURT
“An appellate Court is always reluctant to interfere with the concurrent findings of the facts by two lower Courts except in special circumstances that demonstrate the pervasive nature of such findings. See DOMA V. INEC (Supra Page 835); A.C.N V LAMIDO (2012) ALL FWLR (pt. 630) 1316 at 1340. See pages 44 – 45 of the record of appeal, Moreover, facts admitted need no further proof. The lower Courts were not under any duty to order the measurement of the farmland in dispute. No party was denied any right or made any attempt to identify the disputed property.” PER HUSSEIN MUKHTAR J.C.A.
APPEAL: WHERE THERE EXIST CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF TWO LOWER COURT
“The law is settled that an appellate Court is loath to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts except where the finding are shown to be perverse (not supported by evidence); or based on wrong principles of law substantive or procedural; or substantial error is apparent on the face of the record of proceedings; or the Appellant establishes a special circumstance to warrant the reversal of such concurrent findings. See IGE V OLUNLOYO (1984) 1 SCNLR 158, OGUANUHU & ORS V CHIEGBOKA (2013) vol. 221 LRCN (Pt 2) 111 at 130 Paras E -J to 131.” PER AMINA AUDI WAMBAI J.C.A
Before Their Lordships
HUSSEIN MUKHTAR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
AMINA AUDI WAMBAI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
AMADU ALH. DANTANIAppellant(s)
AND
ALH. BALA P. L.Respondent(s)
HUSSEIN MUKHTAR J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment):
This appeal emanated from the Kebbi State Sharia Court of Appeal. The suit was commenced at the trial Sharia Court Ambursa where the Appellant sued the Respondent claiming his share from two farmlands which were bought from the proceed of farm product when they were working together. Furthermore, the Appellant claimed that there is a house which belongs to their farther and that he was entitled to a share in those properties. The Respondent denied the claim of the Appellant, and claimed that the two farmlands were bought by him from his personal money.
Both the Appellant and the Respondent presented witnesses in proof of their respective claims and finally the trial Court entered judgment’ in favor of the Respondent by affirming the two farms and house to him.
Dissatisfied with the said decision the Appellant appealed to Upper Shariah Court III Birnin Kebbi, and after hearing the appeal the Upper Shariah Court affirmed the judgment of the trial Court
Further dissatisfied, the Appellant again appealed to Kebbi State Sharia Court of Appeal Birnin Kebbi and after hearing the appeal, Sharia Court of Appeal Birnin Kebbi affirmed the judgment of Upper Sharia Court III Birnin /Kebbi The Appellant was still not satisfied with the judgment of Shariah Court of Appeal Birnin Kebbi Division and therefore lodged his appeal by filing a Notice of Appeal on 28 December 2015 on twin grounds thus: –
1. The judgement of lower Court is against the weight of Evidence
2. The judgement of the lower Court is perverse and not on preponderance of Evidence
The Respondent has, however, raised a Preliminary Objection as follows: –
TAKE NOTICE that or during the hearing of this Appeal, the Respondent shall by way of preliminary objection contend that this appeal is incompetent and this honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain same on-the following grounds:
1. The Appellant or his counsel did not sign the Notice of Appeal.
2. The grounds of Appeal have no particulars
3. The omnibus ground relates to criminal appeal while this is a civil appeal.
4. Issue for determination does not relate to the grounds of appeal.
The Notice of Appeal, contained in the record of appeal, has clearly been signed. Moreover, the grounds of appeal are stated in the Notice of Appeal. There is also nothing in this appeal showing that it is criminal in nature as asserted by the Respondent. Moreover, it suffices if the Notice of Appeal contains even one valid and arguable ground of appeal. An appeal is sustainable by one competent ground of appeal, even if it be an omnibus ground. The Preliminary Objection is thus frivolous and same is dismissed.
The Appellant raised and argued a lone issue thus:
“whether the lower Court (Kebbi State Sharia Court of Appeal) was right to uphold the concurrent findings of the appellate Upper Shariah Court III Birnin Kebbi and the trial Shariah Court Ambursa”
The learned counsel for the Appellant Abdulwasi’u Muhammed, Esq. argued that the lower Court ought not to have affirmed the concurrent judgments of the Upper Sharia Court III Birnin Kebbi and the trial Sharla Court Ambursa.
It was submitted that under Islamic law that a claimant for declaration of title to land or house must state clearly where the land is situated and the boundary of the land from the east, south, north and west.
Reference was made to the book of Bahjah Vol. 1 page 53 where the Learned author stated thus: –
(Arabic citation)
It was argued, on behalf of the Appellant, that neither the Appellant nor the Respondent did mention where the farmlands and the house in dispute are situate with boundaries specifications.
It was submitted for the Appellant that the failure to identify the properties in dispute was acknowledged by the Court below when it observed thus: –
“similarly, we noticed that before the trial Court A. Bala P.L stated that there is a house which is for inheritance. We (have not seen) where this house (was) measured or divided”
The Court was urged to resolve the lone issue in favour of Appellant against the Respondent.
It was contended by the learned counsel to the Respondent T. O. Adeboye, Esq. that the Court below was right in affirming the concurrent finding of fact by the two lower Courts when it observed
thus: –
“The Appellant confessed that the farms belong to the Respondent and also could not validly impeach the witnesses presented by the Respondent”.
It behooves the Appellant to demonstrate the extent to which those findings made by the Court below or otherwise sustained in its judgment were perverse. An appellate Court is always reluctant to interfere with the concurrent findings of the facts by two lower Courts except in special circumstances that demonstrate the pervasive nature of such findings. See DOMA V. INEC (Supra Page 835); A.C.N V LAMIDO (2012) ALL FWLR (pt. 630) 1316 at 1340. See pages 44 – 45 of the record of appeal, Moreover, facts admitted need no further proof. The lower Courts were not under any duty to order the measurement of the farmland in dispute. No party was denied any right or made any attempt to identify the disputed property.
Under Sharia Law like in all civil cases, where facts are directly admitted or even deemed to be admitted, such facts need not be proved. The issue of proof of boundaries only arises where there is a dispute on such fact. Proof is unnecessary where, as in the instant case, the fact in question has been admitted. Moreover, the Appellant has not shown any perversity in the concurrent decisions of the first two lower Courts. I have no recitation in resolving the lone issue in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant.
5
This appeal is, therefore, completely bereft of substance and deserves an outright dismissal. It is accordingly hereby dismissed with cost of Thirty Thousand Naira (N30,000. 00) to the Respondent against the Appellant.
AMINA AUDI WAMBAI, J.C.A.:I have read the judgment delivered by my learned brother, Hussein Mukhtar, JCA with whom I am in agreement that there is no merit in this appeal. The settled position of law in sharia as it is in common law is that facts admitted need no further proof. The appellant having admitted that the farms belong to the Respondent, places no further duty on the Respondent to prove the boundaries of the disputed land.
The concurrent findings of the two lower Courts cannot be faulted and the appellant has not successfully shown why we should interfere with the concurrent decisions of the two lower Courts. The law is settled that an appellate Court is loath to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts except where the finding are shown to be perverse (not supported by evidence); or based on wrong principles of law substantive or procedural; or substantial error is apparent on the face of the record of proceedings; or the Appellant establishes a special circumstance to warrant the reversal of such concurrent findings. See IGE V OLUNLOYO (1984) 1 SCNLR 158, OGUANUHU & ORS V CHIEGBOKA (2013) vol. 221 LRCN (Pt 2) 111 at 130 Paras E -J to 131.
The Appellant having not shown the presence of any of these circumstances, I cannot but subscribe to the conclusion by my learned brother that this appeal is devoid of any merit. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed by me.
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, J.C.A.:I had the opportunity of reading the draft of the Judgment of my learned Brother HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, JCA just delivered and I am in agreement with his reasoning and conclusions in disallowing the Appeal. I am also in agreement that the Appeal is lacking in merit and therefore fails and it is accordingly dismissed for want of substance. I abide by the consequential Orders made by Court.
Appearances:
Abdulwasi’u Muhd, Esq.For Appellant(s)
T. O. Adeboye, Esq. (Holding Brief of A. R. Chiroma, Esq)For Respondent(s)
