LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

LAFIYA v. SHUWAKA (2022)

LAFIYA v. SHUWAKA

(2022)LCN/17012(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(SOKOTO JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Monday, May 30, 2022

CA/S/84S/2021

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

ABDULMUMINI LAFIYA APPELANT(S)

And

ABUBAKAR DANLADI INDO SHUWAKA RESPONDENT(S)

 

RATIO

THE POSITION OF LAW ON WHAT AMOUNTS TO ISLAMIC PERSONAL LAW

As to what amounts to Islamic Personal law, the Constitution at paragraphs (A) – (E) of Section 277 (2) has itemised those subject areas or matters over which the Sharia Court of Appeal of a State can exercise Appellate and Supervising Jurisdiction in relation to marriage, the dissolution of marriage, family relationship, guardianship of an infant, Wakf, gift, will or succession where the endower, donor, testator or deceased person is a Muslim. The Sharia Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to determine any matter which is not an issue of Islamic Personal Law. See MAISHANU VS MANU (2007) NWLR (pt.1032) 42.
The claim before the trial Court is at page 1 of the printed record of appeal. It reads.
Thus:
“I, Abubakar Danladi Shuwaka is suing one Abdulmumin Lahiya before the Court because he pawned a farm to me.
Then he said this farm you are farming will be sold during harvesting/dry season. I said to him I will buy it and bargained at the sum of N70,000.00 and he sold it to me. I said that I will bring the money on Thursday. But he went and sold it to another person without revocation. As such I am pleading with the Court to affirm my sale transaction”
Going by the claim above, it is obvious that the claim does not relate to Islamic Personal Law as itemised at Section 277 (2) of the Constitution. The claim unarguably relates to a transaction or sale of farmland, hence this Court has held in BASHIRU NA-UMMA VS ALIYU BATURE (2021) LPELR-55088.
Thus: –
Disputes which involve claims for title to land or such other land related matters bothering on ownership of land or right of use of such land, do not fall within the purview of Section 277 (2) of the Constitution. Consequently, it is an exercise in futility for the Sharia Court of Appeal to delve into or entertain appeal over matters or claim which do not involve Islamic Personal Law, as in this case, as it lacks jurisdiction to do so.
Even when the case went on appeal to the Upper Sharia Court of Appeal, Birnin Kebbi, the nature of the claim still remains the same. It is not a claim over which the Sharia Court of Appeal can exercise appellate or supervisory jurisdiction, hence the Court below wrongly assumed jurisdiction to hear that appeal.
The judgment of the Sharia Court of Appeal to which this appeal relate is a nullity. See APC & ORS VS ENUGU STATE I.E.C & ORS. (supra); MADUKOLU VS NKEMDILIM (1962) 1 ALL NLR 587. I agree in toto with the submissions of the learned counsel to the Appellant in his brief on issue No. 1.
PER HUSSAIN, J.C.A.

SAIDU TANKO HUSSAIN, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appeal is against the judgment of the Sharia Court of Appeal, Birnin Kebbi delivered on the 11th November, 2020 in the Appeal No. SCA/KBS/MYM/36/2019 which set aside the judgment of the Upper Sharia Court, Maiyama, Kebbi State and affirmed the decision of Sharia Court Suru, Kebbi state.

The Respondent as plaintiff had instituted action at the Sharia Court, Suru, Kebbi State in Suit No. CR/162/2018 and claimed against the Appellant as defendant, the specific performance of a contract allegedly concluded or entered into between them for the sale of a farmland to him (Respondent) but which the Appellant later sold to another person without revoking the previous sale agreement between them.

Upon hearing both parties over that claim, the trial Court made some findings and thereafter entered judgment in favour of the Respondent as per his claim. The trial Court held in its findings at page 8 of the record thus:-
​“Therefore I affirmed this contract and revoke the assertion that Abubakar Danladi has not paid the money. That you Abubakar Danladi should pay Abdulmumini the sum of N70,000 as the cost of what he sold to you”

Dissatisfied with this judgment of the trial Court, the defendant (Abdulmumini Lahiya) appealed to the Upper Sharia Court, Maiyama. His appeal to the upper Sharia Court was allowed. See page 15 of the record of appeal.

It is against this decision of the upper Sharia Court, the plaintiff has appealed to the Sharia Court of appeal which, upon hearing the case, set aside the decision of the Upper Sharia Court and restored the judgment of the trial Court.

The appeal before us is against that decision/findings of the Sharia Court of Appeal, holden in Birnin Kebbi and delivered on 11/11/2020. The appeal is predicated on four grounds as contained in the notice and Grounds of appeal dated and filed on the 2nd January, 2021

The notice and grounds of appeal to this Court has been incorporated into the record of appeal before us, at pages 21-23. The said record of appeal, having been so transmitted was deemed on the 29/11/2021.

The Appellant filed his brief of argument on the same 29/11/2021 and adopted same through his counsel on the 7/3/2022.

​Respondent has not filed any brief of argument hence this appeal will be determined on the Appellant’s brief alone.

The (2) issues identified by the Appellant in his brief are: –
1. Whether from the nature of the claims of the Respondent at the trial Court, the Court below has the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal filed before it. (Distilled from grounds one and three of the notice and grounds of appeal)
2. Whether the Court below was right when it set aside the judgment of the lower Court and affirmed the decision of the trial Court when it is apparent from records of appeal that Respondent by his acts had rescinded the contract of sale haven not been able to furnish consideration (Distilled from grounds two and four of the Notice and grounds of Appeal)

Issue No. 1 raises a fundamental question relating to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Sharia Court of Appeal over a contractual relationship between the parties on the sale or otherwise of a farmland, the subject matter in dispute.

​Arguing this point, the learned appellant’s counsel has urged us to hold that the Sharia Court of appeal has no jurisdiction over the subjected-matter in dispute by reason of the provision in Section 277 (1), (2) of the Constitution of the FRN, 1999 (as amended) which he said has circumscribed and restricted the scope of jurisdictional activities of the Sharia Court of Appeal to questions of Islamic Personal Law only. He made copious references to decided case on the meaning and import of the term “Jurisdiction” We were referred to decisions in: SANI BAWA & 2 ORS VS ELANG WUNJI PARA (2021) LPELR-54433(CA). ABDULHAMID VS LAMAN KOLO (2021) LPELR-55463 (CA), AYUBA ZAFI VS IRIMIYA MANZO (2021) LPELR-55148 (CA); APC & 2ORS VS ENUGU STATE INDEPENDENT ELECTRORAL COMMISSION & 2 ORS (2021) LPELR–55337 (CA); AWOJOLU VS ODEYEMI (2013)14 WRN PAGE 28, 4; PETER OBI VS INEC (2007) 13 NSCQCR 753, 776-777; MOBIL OIL (NIG.) PLC. VS YUSUF (2012) 9 WLR (PT.1304) 47,57; MADUKOLU VS NKEMDILIN (1962)1 ALL NLR 587,595.

Learned Appellant’s counsel referred us to the claim before the trial Court at page 1 of the printed record to submit that by reason of the nature of the claim before the trial Court, the Sharia Court of Appeal, the Court below lack jurisdiction to clear and determine the appeal brought before it, since the claim at the trial Court has nothing to do with Islamic Personal Law, in reference to decisions in BASHIR NA UMMA VS ALIYU BATURE (2011) LPLER-55088 (CA).

He further referred to decision in HAKIMI BOYI VS MAGAJI HASSAN (2006)3 SLR (pt.2) 195, 197-198, MAISHANU VS MANU (2007) NWLR (PT.1032) 42 and he urged us finally, to hold that the Court below lack the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal brought before it.

Relative to issue No. 2 on whether the Court below was right to set aside the judgment of the Upper Sharia Court and in its place restore the decision of the trial Court, we were urged to answer this question in the negative in favour of the Appellant. This submission is premised on the fact that the Respondent who was given ample opportunity to pay the purchase price of the land sold to him still failed to make payment as agreed between the parties. We were urged to resolve issue No. 2 in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent.

Resolution of issue No. 1
The Sharia Court of Appeal came into being by reason of the Constitutional provision at Section 275 of the Constitution of FRN, 1999 (as amended) and by Section 277 (1), (2) ​the Court was/is vested with jurisdiction to hear and determine issues or questions relating to Islamic Personal Law.

As to what amounts to Islamic Personal law, the Constitution at paragraphs (A) – (E) of Section 277 (2) has itemised those subject areas or matters over which the Sharia Court of Appeal of a State can exercise Appellate and Supervising Jurisdiction in relation to marriage, the dissolution of marriage, family relationship, guardianship of an infant, Wakf, gift, will or succession where the endower, donor, testator or deceased person is a Muslim. The Sharia Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to determine any matter which is not an issue of Islamic Personal Law. See MAISHANU VS MANU (2007) NWLR (pt.1032) 42.
The claim before the trial Court is at page 1 of the printed record of appeal. It reads.
Thus:
“I, Abubakar Danladi Shuwaka is suing one Abdulmumin Lahiya before the Court because he pawned a farm to me.
Then he said this farm you are farming will be sold during harvesting/dry season. I said to him I will buy it and bargained at the sum of N70,000.00 and he sold it to me. I said that I will bring the money on Thursday. But he went and sold it to another person without revocation. As such I am pleading with the Court to affirm my sale transaction”
Going by the claim above, it is obvious that the claim does not relate to Islamic Personal Law as itemised at Section 277 (2) of the Constitution. The claim unarguably relates to a transaction or sale of farmland, hence this Court has held in BASHIRU NA-UMMA VS ALIYU BATURE (2021) LPELR-55088.
Thus: –
Disputes which involve claims for title to land or such other land related matters bothering on ownership of land or right of use of such land, do not fall within the purview of Section 277 (2) of the Constitution. Consequently, it is an exercise in futility for the Sharia Court of Appeal to delve into or entertain appeal over matters or claim which do not involve Islamic Personal Law, as in this case, as it lacks jurisdiction to do so.
Even when the case went on appeal to the Upper Sharia Court of Appeal, Birnin Kebbi, the nature of the claim still remains the same. It is not a claim over which the Sharia Court of Appeal can exercise appellate or supervisory jurisdiction, hence the Court below wrongly assumed jurisdiction to hear that appeal.
The judgment of the Sharia Court of Appeal to which this appeal relate is a nullity. See APC & ORS VS ENUGU STATE I.E.C & ORS. (supra); MADUKOLU VS NKEMDILIM (1962) 1 ALL NLR 587. I agree in toto with the submissions of the learned counsel to the Appellant in his brief on issue No. 1.

The issue relating to jurisdiction of Court is a threshold issue. It transcends every other consideration such that if successfully raised, as in this case on appeal, every other question or issue become less significant, hence I should discountenance issue No. 2 which attempt to address the merits of the appeal.

This appeal in effect succeeds and same is allowed. The proceedings at the Sharia Court of Appeal leading to the judgment of the Court delivered on the 11th November, 2020 are a nullity and the same accordingly are set aside.
That is the order and judgment.

ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, J.C.A.: I agree.

MOHAMMED DANJUMA, J.C.A.: I have read in draft, the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother Saidu Tanko Hussaini, JCA. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion that this appeal succeeds and same is allowed. I abide by all the consequential orders in the lead judgment.

Appearances:

Ahmad A. Fingilla, Esq. For Appellant(s)

…For Respondent(s)