YUGUDA v. DANIYA & ORS (2022)

YUGUDA v. DANIYA & ORS

(2022)LCN/16646(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(SOKOTO JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Thursday, June 30, 2022

CA/S/150S/2017

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

IBRAHIM YUGUDA APPELANT(S)

And

1. ABDULLAHI DANIYA 2. LAWAL GEBA 3. AMADU 4. IBRAHIM DODO RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF JURISDICTION

The word or term “Jurisdiction” is defined as the authority by which a Court has to decide matters that are laid before it for litigation or to take cognisance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. The limits of this authority are imposed by the Constitution Statute, charter or commission under which the Court is constituted and may be extended or restricted by similar means. If no restriction or limit is imposed, the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited, see: Vol. 10 Halsbury Laws of England, 4th edition para 715 page 325. See further the decision, in Chief Olusegun Obasanjo & Ors vs. Mohammed Dikko Yusuf & Anr. (2004) LPELR–2151 (SC); FBN Ltd vs. Abraham (2008) LPELR–1281 (SC); National Bank & Anor. Vs. Shoyoye & Anr. (1977) LPELR–1948 (SC).

THE JURISDICTION OF THE SHARIA COURT OF APPEAL

SAIDU TANKO HUSSAINI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the judgment of the Sharia Court of Appeal of Zamfara State delivered on the 31st March, 2015 in Suit No SCA/GS1/153/2015. The appellant commenced action as the plaintiff at the Upper Sharia Court, Samaru, Gusau and claimed against the Respondents as defendants the return of his father’s farmland sold to them without the consent of appellant’s family members since his father was not mentally sound to engage in that kind of transaction. The claim of the Appellant at the trial Court was denied by the Respondent. The trial Upper Sharia Court Samaru, Gusau went ahead and took evidence of witnesses for the Appellant and those of the Respondents respectively. In the judgment delivered at the Upper Sharia Court, Samaru, on 25th April, 2013 the Court found reason not to revoke or set aside the sale transaction but rather modified the terms of sale. Refer to pages 102–103 of the record of Appeal. Respondents herein, dissatisfied with the judgment of the Upper Sharia Court, Samaru Gusau, lodged an appeal to the Sharia Court of Appeal which heard the appeal and set aside the decision of the Upper Sharia Court.

The Appellant before us, who was the Respondent at the Sharia Court of Appeal, has appealed to this Court vide his amended Notice of Appeal, containing two (2) grounds and filed on 27/02/2019. His grouse under Ground 1 of his amended Notice of appeal is that the Sharia Court of Appeal in Zamfara has entertained an appeal on a subject matter over which it lacked jurisdiction. His complaint under Ground 2 of the amended Notice of appeal is that the judgment of the Sharia Court of Appeal, Gusau, Zamfara State was perverse.

In the brief of argument filed on behalf of the Appellant, the only or lone issue earmarked for determination of this Court is:-
Whether the Sharia Court of Appeal, Zamfara State has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Appellant’s appeal when the subject matter was title to landed property?

Learned Counsel for the Appellant in response to this question has argued in his brief that the Sharia Court of Appeal lacks such jurisdiction. He adverted our mind to the claim presented at the trial Court since it is the claim of the plaintiff that determines the exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts. Issue relating to jurisdiction can be raised at any time. We were referred to a plethora of decided cases including decisions in Tukur V. Government of Gongola State (1989) 9 SCNJ 1. Engr. Yalaju Amaye Vs. Regd. Engineering Co. Ltd (1990) 6SCN J149. Kanawa Vs Maikacet (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. (1042) 283, 297; CBN Vs. SAP (Nig.) Ltd (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt. 911) 153. Ukudano Vs. Keregbe (2002)38 WRN 139, 142.

In the reference to Section 277 (1) (2) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) it is argued that the extent and scope of the jurisdictional activities of the Sharia Court of Appeal of a State is confined only the subject areas itemised at Section 277(2) of the Constitution and not more, hence any other law which purports to confer on the Sharia Court of Appeal to hear and determine cases related to land or claim of ownership of land is unconstitutional. It is to this extent he argued stating that the Zamfara State Sharia (Administration of justice) law, 2000 was unconstitutional, the law being inconsistent with Section 277 (1)(2) hence provision of the Constitution must prevail. He referred us to Section 1(3) on the supremacy of the Constitution above all other laws. Citing further a plethora of other cases, it is argued by him that once the issue of title to land is raised, the jurisdiction of the Sharia Court of Appeal is automatically ousted. We were urged to resolve the lone issued in favour of the appellant and set aside the judgment of the Sharia Court of Appeal, Gusau.

There is no brief of argument filed for the Respondents hence this appeal will be determined based on the brief of argument filed for the Appellant. The claim presented by the Appellant at the Upper Sharia Court is encapsulated in the translated version of the record of appeal wherein the Appellant as the plaintiff then is on record as stating as follows:
I Ibrahim Yuguda hereby filing a suit against the following persons, namely, Abdullahi Dan Iya, Lawali Geba and Ahmad, that both conspired and sell a farmland that belongs to my father without the consent of his family members, and the sale was carried out while our father behaved like a prodigal person, he doesn’t understand anything, he cannot count money or value the current denominations or even the amount. Consequent upon the above sale, he travels to Mecca to perform pilgrimage and while in Mecca, due to his unsound mind he sustains a fracture. In addition to that 1st defendant Abdullahl Dan Iya acted as a son to our father and he forgery my signature with the view to claim I attended the transact on. He also claimed that after such transaction, he used the balance of money to purchase another plot of land to our father at Bye Pass for the sum of Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira (N250,000.00) he also purchase a house to our father at Tullukawa for the sum of Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira (N250,000.00) and he also said, he gave out the sum of One Hundred Thousand Naira (N100,00.00) to do business to our father. All the above, Abdullahi Dan lya do it in the name of our father without the consent of his real family members.
However, the 3rd defendant Amadu is the person who bought the farmland from Abdullahi Dan Iya through Lawali Geba 2nd defendant at the cost of One Million,
Two Hundred Thousand Naira (N1,200,000.00).
I came to know about the sale when I visited the farmland to plant beans, then Amadu 3rd defendant reported me to Tudun-Wada Police Station Gusau, the Police arrested and detained me, and they released me after conducted an investigation on the matter, then Amadu 3rd defendant expresses his dismay and he said “he will increased the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Naira (N500,000.00) over the initial payment of the transaction with Abdullahi ‘-Dan Iya” and also said “They now understand that Abdullahi Dan Iya is not among the sons of the owner of the farmland.”
It is based on the above I am suing these persons before this Court, so that Court will revoke the said transaction of a farmland between our father and Abdullahi Dan Iya, Amadu, on the reason that, our father i.e. the owner of the farmland does not have capacity to enter into such transaction. And from all indications, Abdullahi Dan Iya does not have good aim in respect of tile transaction by excluding the family of the owners to know or to participate in all what transpired between him and our father, he also used my name in the letter of agreement as a witness in the transaction and forgery my signature.

It is this claim of the Appellant at the trial Court, that resort can be made when the question arises as to whether or not any particular Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter in dispute, see Tukur v. Government of Gongola State (supra). Reading through the claim reproduced above, it is beyond any dispute that the claim relates to the sale of the farmland, the ownership of which is vested in the father of the Appellants herein. Although the decision of the Upper Sharia Court Gusau was challenged at the Sharia Court of Appeal, i.e. the Court below, the nature of the claim still remains the same even at or before the Sharia Court of Appeal such that the question need to be asked whether the Sharia Court of Appeal has the vires to hear and determine a claim relating to land or such other land related cases? Put clearly, has the Sharia Court of Appeal jurisdiction over such matters?

The word or term “Jurisdiction” is defined as the authority by which a Court has to decide matters that are laid before it for litigation or to take cognisance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. The limits of this authority are imposed by the Constitution Statute, charter or commission under which the Court is constituted and may be extended or restricted by similar means. If no restriction or limit is imposed, the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited, see: Vol. 10 Halsbury Laws of England, 4th edition para 715 page 325. See further the decision, in Chief Olusegun Obasanjo & Ors vs. Mohammed Dikko Yusuf & Anr. (2004) LPELR–2151 (SC); FBN Ltd vs. Abraham (2008) LPELR–1281 (SC); National Bank & Anor. Vs. Shoyoye & Anr. (1977) LPELR–1948 (SC).

The Sharia Court of Appeal of a State came into existence by virtue of the enactment at Section 275 of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) which established the Court and conferred it with appellate and supervisory jurisdiction under Section 277 (1) to hear and determine questions of Islamic Personal Law only as specified at Section 277(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). In the exercise of its appellate functions the Sharia Court of Appeal can only entertain appeals relating to marriage including the dissolution of such marriage, questions regarding Wakf, Gift, Will or Succession, any question of Islamic Personal Law, regarding an infant, prodigal or person of unsound mind or the maintenance of such persons. Issues relating to title or ownership of land is not reckoned with as a question of Islamic Personal Law under Section 277(2) of the Constitution hence the Sharia Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to entertain such appeals. See decision in Alhaji Yahaya Salema & Ors vs. Mamman & Anr. (2006) 3 SLR (pt. 1) 203; Abuja vs. Bizi (1989) 5 NWLR (pt. 119) 120; Umar Alh. Garba vs. Adamu Dogon Yaro (1991) 1 NWLR (pt. 165) 102; Magaji vs. Matari (2000) 8 NWLR (pt. 620) 722; Magaji vs. Dattijo (2007) All FWLR (pt. 365) 599; Muninga vs. Muninga (1997) 11 NWLR (pt. 527) 1; Gambo v. Tukuyi (1997) 10 NWLR (PT. 526) 591; Usman vs. Kareem (1995) 2 NWLR (pt. 379) 537; Furfuri vs. Rawayyau (2008) All FWLR (pt. 401) 1000.
The Sharia Court of Appeal i.e. the Court below cannot legally and constitutionally act under the provision of the Zamfara State Sharia (Administration of Justice) Law, 2000 which purportedly confers jurisdiction on the Court below to hear and determine the Appellant’s appeal in suit No. SCA/WR/46/2017, the same being unconstitutional is void, given the supremacy of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) over any other enactment by reason of Section 1(3) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
It follows therefore that the Zamfara State Sharia (Administration of Justice) Law, 2000, if there is any law like that which purports to confer jurisdiction on the Sharia Court of Appeal of Zamfara State, to hear and determine cases of tittle or ownership of land as in suit No. SC/A/WR/46/2017 is null and void, the same being inconsistent with the clear provisions of Section 277(1)(2) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). By reason of Section 1(3), the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is superior to any other law, to the extent of the inconsistency, is null and void.

This appeal in effect succeeds and the same is allowed on the sole issue canvassed before us. Consequently, the judgment of the Sharia Court of Appeal, Gusau, Zamfara State given on 31st March, 2015 in suit No. SCA/GS1/153/2013 is set aside. Cost in the sum of N50,000.00 is assessed against the Respondents and in favour of the Appellant.

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

MOHAMMED DANJUMA, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft, the lead judgment of my learned brother Sa’idu 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:

M. Shehu, Esq, with him, A. S. Maiwada, Esq. For Appellant(s)

No representation. For Respondent(s)