IBRAHIM & ORS v. IBRAHIM & ORS (2020)

IBRAHIM & ORS v. IBRAHIM & ORS

(2020)LCN/14453(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Wednesday, July 22, 2020

CA/K/143/S/2015

Before Our Lordships:

Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa Justice of the Court of Appeal

Saidu Tanko Hussaini Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abubakar Mahmud Talba Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

HASSAN IBRAHIM 2. MALLAM YARO IBRAHIM 3. BABANGIDA IBRAHIM 4. ABDULLAHI IBRAHIM 5. ALHAJI IBRAHIM 6. HABIBU IBRAHIM 7. LAMI IBRAHIM 8. IYA IBRAHIM 9. SARATU IBRAHIM 10. A’ISHA IBRAHIM 11. ATIKA IBRAHIM APPELANT(S)

And

HABIBA IBRAHIM 2. ZAITU IBRAHIM 3. RAMATU IBRAHIM 4. GAMBO IBRAHIM 5. AMINA IBRAHIM 6. KASIMU IBRAHIM 7. MAIRO IBTRAHIM 8. MAGAJI IBRAHIM 9. KABIRU IBRAHIM 10. MAIMUNA IBRAHIM RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT THE APPELLATE COURT WILL INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT

The law is trite that where there are concurrent findings of facts by two lower Courts, this Court will not readily interfere with the findings made unless there is a miscarriage of Justice or the violation of some principles of law or procedure or that the findings are shown to be perverse rather much weight will be given to the opinion of the two Courts below. See Ojo v. Attorney General, Oyo State (2008) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1110) 577; PDP v. INEC (2014) LPELR-23808 (SC), Sobakin v. State (1981) 5 SC 75; Okonkwo v. Okagbue (1994) 9 NWLR 301, 322. This appeal thus will be examined mindful of the principle enunciated above. In other to succeed in this appeal the Appellants must bring those facts to bear, that is to say, there had been some miscarriage of Justice, or there was violation of some principles of law or that the findings of the two lower Courts were perverse. PER HUSSAINI, J.C.A.

DEFINITION OF “EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE”

Evaluation of evidence simply means the assessment or the estimation of evidence by a trial Court so as to give credit or value to it. There lies the importance of evaluation of evidence. The Judge must assess and appraise all evidence before it. See Onisaodu v. Elewuju (2006) 13 NWLR (Pt. 998) 517. This is the common law position. Even under Islamic law the position is not different. It is trite that the Judge must give his judgment in the light of the evidence given by witnesses as it is provided in the book of Ihkamul, Akam, Page 14 where it says: “The judge depends on the evidence given by witnesses in giving Judgment.” See Buba v. Musa (2006) LPELR-7675 (CA) or (2007) NWLR (Pt. 1032). PER HUSSAINI, J.C.A.

SAIDU TANKO HUSSAINI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the Judgment delivered at the Sharia Court of Appeal Kaduna (Zaria Session) on the 7th April, 2014 which affirmed the decision of the trial Upper Sharia Court III Tudun Wada, Zaria. The proceeding(s) leading to the Judgment at the Upper Sharia Court were taken sequel to an earlier order of the Sharia Court of Appeal directed on the Court (Upper Sharia Court III, Tudun Wada Zaria) to start and rehear the case denovo.

The Appellants and the Respondents are heirs of Late Mallam Ibrahim Kadarko who died intestate. The claim of the Respondents as Plaintiffs is for the distribution of the estate of their late father, Mallam Ibrahim Kadarko including:
(i) the nine (9) farmlands situated at Farekwai
(ii) the farmland at Buzai
(iii) Two Houses, at No. 56 Konfage Zaria city and No. 55 Ungqan Nupawa, Zaria city.

The 1st Appellant has disputed the claim to the farmland No. 9 at Farakwai, stating that it is not part of the Estate of the deceased. Rather the farmland belong to him having purchased that land. As to the farmland at Buzai, it was contended by the

1st Appellant, that all the heirs of late Ibrahim Kadarko all consented to sell the farmland and same was sold and proceeds that accrued from that sale were distributed among the heirs.

Given this claim or counterclaim of the Appellants, the trial Upper sharia Court III Tudun Wada Zaria, directed the Appellants, the 1st appellant in particular, to lead evidence and prove his claim.

In the bid to establish the sale of the said farmland No. 9 to him, the 1st Appellant called evidence of two witnesses i.e, DW1 and DW2. At the end of their evidence the trial Court discountenanced that evidence and directed parties thereto to subscribe to Oath. The 1st Appellant did not subscribe to Oath rather he indicated his desire to appeal the ruling of the Court. See page 26 of the record of appeal (in Hausa). The Respondents present in Court however subscribed to Oath and the trial Court returned the disputed farmland No. 9 as part of the estate of the deceased Alh. Kadarko and distributed same accordingly among all the heirs, including the Appellants herein. Refer to pages 84-91 of the record of appeal.

Not satisfied by this Order and Judgment of the Upper

Sharia Court III, Tudun Wada Zaria delivered on 26/8/2013 the Appellants lodged appeal to the Sharia Court of Appeal on three (3) grounds as can be found at pages 92-93 of the record of appeal. Upon the appeal being heard or argued, the Sharia, Court of Appeal, in the Judgment delivered on the 7th April, 2014 affirmed the decision or Judgment of the Upper Sharia Court, III Tudun Wada, Zaria and dismissed the appeal.

The Appellants, still undaunted, have appealed to this Court vide the Original Notice of Appeal dated the 23rd April, 2014 containing three (3) grounds. See the Record of Appeal at pages 110 – 113. By leave of Court granted on the 21th February, 2017, the Appellants filed their amended Notice and grounds of Appeal on the 28th February, 2017, with four (4) Grounds of Appeal. The stated grounds shorn of particulars are reproduced hereunder thus:
Ground One
The Sharia Court of Appeal Kaduna erred in law when it affirmed the decision of the Upper Sharia Court III Tudun Wada, Zaria that was against the principles of Islamic law on the evaluation of evidence.
Ground Two
The Sharia Court of Appeal Kaduna erred in law and

facts when it affirmed the decision of the Upper Sharia Court III, Tudun Wada Zaria on the distribution of the estate of Late Ibrahim Kadarko when the said estate was not wholly and fully ascertained as at the time of the judgment of the trial Court.
Ground Three
The Sharia Court of Appeal Kaduna erred in law for not calling witnesses or order retrial on the issue that some of heirs have not sworn to an Oath on the disputed property which was included as part of the estate of Late Mallam Ibrahim Kadarko by the trial Upper Sharia Court III Tudun Wada, Zaria.
Ground Four
The Sharia Court of Appeal erred in law when it confirmed the declaration of title to land made by the Upper Sharia Court, III Tudun Wada Zaria despite the fact that the said trial Upper Sharia Court III Tudun Wada Zaria lacks the competency and jurisdiction to make an order for declaration of title to land and the 1st Appellant having not consented to that.

Briefs of argument were filed and exchanged between the respective counsel for the Appellants and the Respondents upon the record of appeal being transmitted to this Court and deemed as properly before it.

In the brief of argument filed for the Appellant on the 28th February, 2017, the following four (4) issues were identified for the determination of Court namely:
“i. Whether the lower Court (The Sharia Court of Appeal of Kaduna State) is not in error and have not misdirected itself when it fail to order for re-trial despite the fact that the trial Upper Sharia Court III Tudun Wada, Zaria has abdicated its duties of evaluating evidence resorting only to offering oath in error (Ground One).
ii. Whether the lower Court (Sharia Court of Appeal of Kaduna State) is not in error when it affirm the decision of the trial Upper Sharia Court III Tudun Wada, Zaria despite the fact that the said trial Upper Sharia Court III Tudun Wada, Zaria did not properly and fully ascertain the estate of Late Mallam Ibrahim Kadarko (Ground Two).
iii. Whether the trial Upper Sharia Court III Tudun Wada, Zaria has jurisdiction to make declaration of title to land with respect to the ownership of disputed farmland between the 1st Appellant and the estate of Late Mallam Ibrahim Kadarko (Ground Three).
iv. Whether the lower Court is not in error when it fails to

reverse the finding of the Trial Court on the issue of the ownership of the disputed farmland at Farakwai.”

The Respondents on their part, through counsel, identified only one (1) issue in their brief of argument thus:
“Whether considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court below was right in affirming the decision of the trial Upper Sharia Court III, Tudun Wada, Zaria.”

I shall abide by the four (4) issues raised in the Appellants’ brief of argument.

With regard to issue No. 1, it was argued that t 1sthe Appellant had proved his case vide the evidence of the two (2) witnesses he called who testified to the fact that the 1st Appellant purchased the farmland in contention, that is, farmland No. 9 at Farakwai contrary to the claim of the Respondents that the farmland was part of the estate of their late father. Having led that evidence of the two witnesses, the 1st Appellant, it was argued, had discharged the burden of proof on him. He referred us to the Supreme Court case in Rabiu v. Adamu (2013) 1 SQLR (Pt. 1) 1, 21. He argued further stating that even under Islamic law, a party can succeed in his

claim by the testimony of two reliable and credible witnesses. We were referred to Verse 139 of Tuhfatul Hukkam of Ibn Asim wherein it is provided that:
“Two male witnesses suffices for a claim.”

We were further referred to Ar–Risala of Ibn Abi, Zayd Al-Qairawan, translated by Alhaji Bello Muhammed Wamra, Gaskiya Corporation, Zaria P. 131.

In reference to the evidence of the two witness called by the 1st Appellant i.e Nuhu Idris (DW1) and Mallam Yaro Ibrahim (DW2), it was argued that the testimony of those witnesses established the fact that the 1st Appellant purchased the disputed farmland at Farakwai in the sum of N35,000.00. It is argued that the trial Court without taking a stand or make any finding of fact on this piece of evidence, merely directed parties thereto to subscribe to oath. He argued that the Sharia Court of Appeal (the Court below) did not fare any better but fell into the same error without making a finding on the evidence supplied by the 1st Appellant or evaluate same hence the Court below erred when it affirmed the decision of the Upper Sharia Court III, Tudun Wada, Zaria. We were further referred to the

book: IRSHAD AL-SALIK, the Book on Judgment at page 531, on proof.

With regard to issue No. 2, it was argued for the Appellants that the trial Court failed to address certain vital issues which a Court should address relative to the property of the deceased which the Court sought to ascertain; these issues it was contended, relate to the properties of the deceased who died more than 29 years ago but his properties were put to economic use by some of the heirs and strangers without the trial Court asking them to account for the benefit they derived from the use of those properties and the extent of usage. It was argued that the trial Court having failed in its duties to call the parties to render account of those properties; the Court below was in error when it failed to correct that omission of the trial Upper Sharia Court. Hence the finding or holding at the Court below that the Appellants held unto those unaccounted proceeds of the Estate of late Ibrahim Kadarko was perverse as it is not supported by any evidence on the printed record of the trial Court.

Issue No.3 raised in the Appellants’ brief of argument is on the question of the trial

Court and the Sharia Court of Appeal assuming jurisdiction over the matter in a case for declaration of title to land. Issues of title, to land, it was argued, is/was not within the purview of Islamic Personal Law which the trial Court and the Court below can entertain by reason of Section 277 (2) a-e of the CFRN, 1999 (as amended). We were referred to the case of Maccido Magaji v. Umaru Dattijo (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 365) 559, 605 – 606. We were further referred to Section 23 (3) of the Kaduna State Sharia Courts Law No. 11 of 2001 as amended by Section 10 of Kaduna State Sharia Courts (Amendment) Law No. 22 of 2001. We were urged to hold that the decision of the Upper Sharia Court which lack jurisdiction to make declaratory orders of title was null and void relative to the farmland at Farakwai hence the affirmation by the Court below of that decision, was equally null and void.

Under issue No. 4, we were urged to hold that since not all the Respondents (Plaintiffs) subscribed to Oath as directed by the trial Court but some of them only, there was failure of compliance with the Orders of the trial Court. We were urged to resolve all the four (4) issues in

favour of the Appellants and against the Respondents and set aside the Judgment of the Sharia Court of Appeal, Kaduna State and Order for a retrial.

The Respondents expectedly, argued per contra, urged us to resolve all the four (4) issues in favour of the Respondents. In reference to issue No. 1, it was argued that the testimonies of the two witnesses called by the Appellants were not evidence of competent witnesses hence the trial Court rightly discountenanced their evidence and directed the 1st Appellant to subscribe to oath being the person who claimed a deceased person’s property, in reference to the decision in Kada v. Yawa (1998) 10 NWLR (Pt. 569) 196. The 1st Appellant, it was argued, refused to subscribe to oath but the Respondents did. The Court below, it was argued, was right to affirm the decision of the trial Court which placed farmland No. 9 at Farakwai among the estate of late Mallam Ibrahim Kadarko.

Under Issue No. 2, it was argued for the Respondents that for 29 years after the death of their father, the Appellants held on to the Estate of their father and benefitted from same without accounting for it. It was argued in any

case, that the Respondents by their claim concentrated only on the remainder of the Estate of their deceased father knowing fully well the difficulty it entails to bring or ask the Appellants to account for how they managed the estate for more than 29 years. The trial Court and the Court below it was argued, rightly granted the claim of the Respondents. We were urged to so hold.

On issue 3, that is the issue of the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court and the Court below, we were urged to hold that the claim being one for the distribution of the Estate of the deceased and not a claim of ownership or title over land, the trial Court and the Court below rightly exercised jurisdiction over the case. We were referred to decisions in Korau v. Korau (1998) 4 NWLR (Pt. 545) 212, 214; Magaji v. Matari (2000) 5 SC 46.

Relative to issue No. 4, it was argued per contra that all the seven (7) Respondents who were present in Court the day that the trial Court ordered for oath taking, all subscribed to oath. We were referred to page 26 of the record indicating the names of the Respondents that subscribed to oath as against the Appellants who refused to

subscribe to oath. Learned Respondents’ counsel challenged the Appellants to that aspect of Islamic Law that enjoin all the Respondents to subscribe to oath as claimed by them. We were urged to consider the facts and circumstances of this case and to hold that the Court below was right in affirming the decision of the trial Upper Sharia Court III Tudun Wada, Zaria.

OPINION
The appeal to this Court is against the Judgment of the Sharia Court of Appeal delivered on the 7th April, 2014 as at pages (99 – 108 of the record of appeal) affirming the decision of the Upper Sharia Court III, Tudun Wada, Zaria. There is to this extent, two concurrent findings of the lower Courts made in favour of the Respondents by virtue of the decisions of those Courts.

See Ojo v. Attorney General, Oyo State (2008) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1110) 577; PDP v. INEC (2014) LPELR-23808 (SC), Sobakin v. State (1981) 5 SC 75; Okonkwo v. Okagbue (1994) 9 NWLR 301, 322. This appeal thus will be examined mindful of the principle enunciated above. In other to succeed in this appeal the Appellants must bring those facts to bear, that is to say, there had been some miscarriage of Justice, or there was violation of some principles of law or that the findings of the two lower Courts were perverse.

The Appellants arguing their issue No. 1 seem to anchor their case on the failure of the trial Court to evaluate the evidence of witnesses called by them or make a finding of fact therefrom.

witnesses as it is provided in the book of Ihkamul, Akam, Page 14 where it says: “The judge depends on the evidence given by witnesses in giving Judgment.” See Buba v. Musa (2006) LPELR-7675 (CA) or (2007) NWLR (Pt. 1032). It follows therefore that the Judge or Kadi before reaching a conclusion, he must analyse the evidence before him and give reasons for coming to the conclusion as he did.

This is the grudge the appellant holds in this appeal among others, for failure of the trial judge to assess evidence before it which the Court below, according to the Appellants, failed or refused to correct.

The evidence of DW1 and DW2 are at pages 72-75 of the record of appeal, relative to the clam by the 1st appellant that he had purchased the farmland at Farakwai, which was identified as farmland No. 9. For all intents and purposes, the Appellants including the 1st appellant were the Plaintiffs in relation to that claim by them. DW1 in his evidence under cross examination at page 73 of the record stated among other things, that he is the younger brother to the deceased (Ibrahim Kadarko) who gave birth to the Appellants and the Respondents DW1 is

thus related to the parties (the Appellants and the Respondents) being their uncle. He is thus, by reason of this blood relationship with the parties, not a competent witness to testify for either of the parties. See F. H. Rukton, Maliki Law, paragraph 1514: “A man may not give evidence in favour of a near relative”. See further; Mamu v. Mohammed (1977) 11 NWLR (Pt. 526) 323 CA. It follows therefore that blood relation of a party as uncles and in-laws e.t.c will not be admitted as competent witnesses. If such witness is successfully impeached, such evidence shall be discarded. See Mofoluku v. Adama (1961-1989) 1 SLRN 163; Alhaji Sule v. Hamidu (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt. 90) 516, 517-518; Alhaji Usman v. Alhaji Kareem (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 379) 537, 540. I am of the view that DW1 was successfully impeached under cross-examination as he was disqualified under Islamic law to give evidence in favour of any of the parties.
Going by the authorities referred to above, DW1 (Nuhu Idris) who is uncle to the parties but testified for the 1st defendant/1st appellant and DW2, Mallam Yaro Ibrahim who stand to benefit from the claim are both not competent witnesses under

Islamic Law.

The point must also be made that Mallam Yaro Ibrahim who is the 2nd Appellant and a party to the suit is disqualified from giving evidence in his own case. This is contrary to Islamic law, principle. He can only state his case and call independent witnesses to prove his point. See Usman v. Kareem (1994) LPELR-3430 (SC).

Although the trial Court discountenanced the evidence of DW1 and DW2 the Judge did not do so or say so in so many words. Nonetheless, evidence in the printed record of appeal so clearly speak for itself. I can therefore not fault the Sharia Court of Appeal decision which affirmed the decision of the Upper Sharia Court III Tudun Wada, Zaria on this point given the fact that witnesses called by the 1st appellant are not competent witnesses, it is like the appellant called no witness at all to prove his assertion of the purchase of the land claimed by him. This is why the trial Court directed them (Appellants) to subscribe to Oath but they refused. See page 26 of the record of appeal. However the Respondents present in Court did subscribe to Oath as ordered by the trial Court.
In Bulama v. Bulama (2000) 1 NWLR (Pt. 659) 131,

it was held that where the Plaintiff/Counter-claimant failed to establish his claim through evidence the defendant has to subscribe to Oath of denial to justify his entitlement to the subject-matter in dispute. The Court below rightly affirmed the decision of the trial Court who included the farmland No. 9 at Farakwai as among the Estate of late Ibrahim Kadarko as inherited property. Issue No. 1 is accordingly resolved against the Appellants in favour of the Respondents.

Issue No. 2 seek to challenge the correctness of the decision of the Court below when it affirmed the decision of the Upper Sharia Court III, Tudun Wada, Zaria which allegedly did not properly and fully ascertain the Estate of Late Mallam Ibrahim Kadarko.

I have earlier in the course of this judgment, given the summary of the submissions made by counsel on both sides on this point. It appears to me that the Ground of appeal from which issue No 2 was derived, attempt to enlarge the scope of the claims presented at the trial Court. For the avoidance of doubt, the claim of the Respondents is encapsulated in the record of appeal at pages 54 and 56 as follows:-
At page 54 of the

record where the learned counsel for the plaintiffs presenting the claim said that:
“The plaintiff is suing the Defendants seeking to distribute the Estate of their late father Mallam Ibrahim Kadarko who died on the 12th June, 1983 about 29 years ago…”
Learned plaintiff’s counsel went further to give details of the property in respect of which the claim relates at page 56 thus:
“The properties she (sic) died and left behind include 9 farms at Kwanan Farakwai, One land at Buzai in Zaria Low cost which has been sold by M. Hassan and Mal. Yaro on a consideration of the sum of N800,000.00. The said sum was handed over to Mal. Yaro. He collected it, there are two houses: No. 56 Konfage Zaria City and No. 55 Unguwan Nupawa Zaria City. That is our statement of claim. We are praying the Honourable Judge to go and inspect them for verification.”
Any other thing outside this claim, as alleged by the appellant, through their counsel in his brief of argument, at pages 8-9 paragraph 6.2, is for them to lead evidence to prove it as counsel’s address no matter how brilliant,

cannot take the place of admissible evidence. See: Atanze v. Attah (1999) 3 NWLR (Pt. 596) 647. Unless the trial Court is properly seized of that evidence, it has no duty to ascertain claims not brought before it. The remark at page 107 of the record of appeal ascribed to the Court below cannot therefore be reckoned with as the basis of the decisions of the Court (ratio decidendi) rather it is an Obiter dictum. A ground of appeal must derive from the ratio decidendi of the decision appealed against. See: Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 261) 156, 184.

Issue No. 2 is similarly resolved in favour of the Respondents and against the Appellants.

Issue No. 3 raises a fundamental question of absence or lack of jurisdiction of the trial Upper Sharia III Tudun Wada, Zaria as well as the Court below to make a declaration of title to land. I think the Appellants have again misconceived the issues involved. The case before the Upper Sharia Court III and below was/is not a case for declaration of title simpliciter. If it were so, the Upper Sharia Court and the Court below are clearly divested of jurisdiction over the matter. See Magaji v. Dattijo (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 365) 599 (CA).

As stated before, the claim at the trial Court was for the distribution of the Estate of the deceased, Ibrahim Kadarko whose estate included farmland No. 9 at Farakwai. The 1st appellant laid claim to this land insisting that he had purchased same. This claim or counter-claim thus arose from the original claim of the Respondents. The 1st appellant in any case was expected to prove his claim of purchase of farmland No. 9 but he failed. The claim of the 1st appellant is thus, distinguishable from the facts in Magaji v. Dattijo (Supra) rather the decision in Korau v. Korau (1998) 4 NWLR (Pt. 545) 212, 214 and Magaji v. Matari (2000) 5 SC 46 are applicable. Hence issue No. 3 is resolved in favour of the Respondents and against the Appellants.

On issue No. 4, the Appellants raised the question why the trial Court in its decision as affirmed by the Court below found in favour of the Respondents whereas not all the Respondents subscribed to Oath as ordered by the trial Court. Contrary to the submission made by the Appellants or their counsel, it is clear at page 26 of the record that all the seven (7) Respondents present in Court on

that date all subscribed to Oath, before the trial Court took further steps. In any case, the Oath subscribed by the Respondents, being the Oath of denial of the assertion made by the 1st appellant, is not invalidated on account that not all Respondents subscribed to same. In any case, no such authority was cited or referred to by the Appellants in their submission. Issue No. 4 is resolved against the Appellants.

All issues having been resolved against the Appellants, the appeal fails and same is dismissed. The Judgment delivered at the Sharia Court of Appeal on 7th April, 2014 affirming the decision of the Upper Sharia Court III Tudun Wada, Zaria is affirmed.
Parties are to bear their cost.

IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.C.A.: Having read before now the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Hon. Justice S. T. Hussaini, JCA, I have no issue in concurring with the reasoning reached therein to the effect that the instant appeal is devoid of merits.
Hence, the appeal is accordingly hereby dismissed by me on terms of the judgment.

ABUBAKAR MAHMUD TALBA, J.C.A.: I have read the judgment of my learned brother SAIDU

TANKO HUSSAINI, JCA, and I agree with him that this appeal should be dismissed. I find accordingly and adopt the fuller reasons and conclusion as contained in the lead judgment. I have nothing to add to the well written judgment. Moreso the Court of Appeal will not interfere with the concurrent judgments of the trial Court and the lower Court on essentially issues of fact except there is established a Miscarriage of justice or violation of some principles of law or procedure. See National Insurance Corp. of Nig. Vs. Power and Industrial Engineering Co. Ltd (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.14) 1 at 36, Enang vs. Adu (1981) 11-12 SC 25.
There is no miscarriage of justice or violation of some principles of law or procedure established by the appellant in this appeal.

All the issues having been resolved against the appellants, the appeal fails and same is also dismissed by me. The judgment of the Sharia Court of Appeal Kaduna (Zaria Session) delivered on 7th April, 2014 in Suit No. SCA/ZA/92/2013 affirming the decision of the Upper Sharia Court III Tudun Wada, Zaria is hereby affirmed.
Parties are to bear their cost.

Appearances:

SIRAJO INUSA ESQ. For Appellant(s)

ABUBAKAR IS’HAQ ESQ. For Respondent(s)