Legalpedia Citation: (2023-10) Legalpedia 60211 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

KANO JUDICIAL DIVISION

Thu Oct 5, 2023

Suit Number: CA/KN/237/S/2020

CORAM

HON. JUSTICE A. M. TALBA JCA

HON. JUSTICE A. M. LAMIDO JCA

HON. JUSTICE M. DANJUMA JCA

PARTIES

BALARABE KANKAROFI

APPELLANTS

MUSTAPHA IMAM UMAR

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, EVIDENCE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ISLAMIC PERSONAL LAW, JUDGMENT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff/Respondent, at the Upper Sharia Court, Fagge, Kano, Kano State, sought for the distribution of the estate of his late mother, Khadija Inuwa Umar who left ten (10) children namely Balarabe (the Appellant), Bashir Mustapha (the Respondent), Habibu, Abdulkadir, Rabi’atu, Aishatu, Zainab and Hafsatu. The deceased left behind inheritable estate which includes car, house and the sum of N24,083.00.

The Defendant (herein the Appellant) denied the claim and further counter claim that the house and the car in question were given to him as a gift by his mother before her death.

The other heirs to late Khadija Inuwa Umar admitted to the claim of the Appellant but which was vehemently denied by the Respondent. At the conclusion of the trial, the Upper Sharia Court, Fagge, Kano held that the gift claim by the Defendant (Appellant) has failed, therefore, the estate shall be shared among the heirs of late Khadija and all other shares of the other heirs, with the exception of the Respondent herein shall go to the Appellant, since they have admitted and consented to the gift as stated by the Defendant (Appellant).

The Respondent being dissatisfied with the said judgment, appealed to the Sharia Court of Appeal, Kano and the said court, after hearing the parties, affirmed the decision of the trial court, but ordered that the estate should be distributed equally, between the Appellant and the Respondent.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Sharia Court of Appeal, Kano, the Appellant filed the instant appeal, challenging the judgment of the Sharia Court of Appeal, Kano.

 

HELD

Appeal allowed

ISSUES

1. Whether the court below (Sharia Court of Appeal, Kano) was right when it held that the estate of Late Hajia Inuwa Umar (a House and a car) shall be distributed equally between the Appellant and the Respondent, regardless of the admission made by the heirs in favour of the Appellant’s gift?
2. Whether the lower court (Sharia Court of Appeal, Kano) was right when it held that the estate of late Khadija Inuwa Umar (a car and a house) shall be distributed between the Appellant and the Respondent equally without stating any reason in arriving at its decision?

 

RATIONES DECIDENDI

COURTS, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, SHARIA

JUDGES – DUTY OF JUDGES CALLED UPON TO DISTRIBUTE THE ESTATE OF A DECEASED TO DECEASED’S HEIRS UNDER ISLAMIC LAW

In the case of MUHAMMADU V. MOHAMMED (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt. 708) 1049, it was held that:

“It is the duty of the judge who is called upon to distribute the estate of a deceased to his heirs to determine and ascertain: a’ the death of the deceased- Maurith; b. the legitimate surviving heirs- AlWarith; c. The inheritable estate- Al Maurith; d. The shares of different heirs and to allot their rightful shares to each of the Qur’anic heirs”.

See also ABDU V. LAWAL & ORS (2017) LPELR-44610 (CA) and JATAU V. MAILAFIYA (1998) 1 NWLR (Pt. 535) 176.

Furthermore, in the course of exercising the judicial function thereof a judge is required to dispense justice to the respective parties with utmost fear of Allah (SWT); without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. According to Holy Qur’an, 4:58;

“Allah does command you to render back your trust to those whom they are due: And that when you judge between people that you judge with justice. Verily, hold excellent in the teaching which he gives you. Hears and see all things”. – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA

ISLAMIC LAW – RIGHTS OF HEIRS TO A DECEASED PERSON TO INHERIT THE DECEASED’S ESTATE UNDER ISLAMIC LAW

Under Islamic Law, all the heirs of a deceased person are entitled to have their shares from the deceased person’s estate when the issue of inheritance arises and their share are as provided under Islamic Law, based on their status, except in certain circumstances where the law barred the relative from inheriting a particular person. See FATHUL-JAWAD P. 456-7. – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA

ADMISSION – WHEN A SANE ADULT MAKES AN ADMISSION IN A CIVIL SUIT

In the case of IBRAHIM HAMZA V. LAWAL & ANOR (2006) LPELR-7657 (CA), it was held Per MUHAMMAD, JCA (PP. 15-17, Paras. F-A) thus:

“The position of Sharia is that, where a sane adult person, free from any interdiction, makes an admission in a civil suit, he is bound by his admission. The Admission/Confession is a better form of evidence than witnesses”.

It could be seen then that an adult free of interdiction is held liable for his admission. See Khalil, Jawahir al-iklil Vol. 2 P. 132.  – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA

 

ISLAMIC LAW – WHETHER HEIRS ARE FREE TO FORFEIT THEIR SHARES UNDER ISLAMIC LAW

Heirs under under Islamic Law are at liberty to forfeit their shares in favour of a particular person of their choice. Each and every one of them have the legal capacity to do so. – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA

JUDGMENT – DUTY OF COURTS TO ANCHOR JUDGMENT ON SOUND REASONING AND CONCLUSION

It is trite law that the decision of court must not be arbitrary, but anchored on sound reasoning and conclusion. That is why the law insists that, every finding of a court or tribunal must be based on reason by the judge applying his judicial mind. A judge of a court must therefore give a full and dispassionate consideration of the issues properly raised before it. See the case of ABAYOMI BAKARE V. THE STATE (2017) LPELR-42772 (CA).

Similarly, in the case of AGBANELO V. UBN LTD (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 666) P. 534 at 537, it was held, Per KARIBI-WHYTE, JSC, that:

“It is elementary and essential ingredient of the judicial function that reasons are to be given for decision. It is more the case where appeals lie from the decision. In any case, the reasons for decision enable the determination on appeal whether the decision was merely intuitive and arbitrary or whether it is consistent with established applicable principles. If judgments were to be delivered without supporting reasons it will be an invitation to arbitrariness, a rule of merely tossing the coin and the likelihood to result in judicial anarchy”.

It is therefore settled that a court of law, both trial and appellate, must give reasons for any finding of fact or decision.  – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA

 

DECISION – HOW A COURT DECISION SHOULD BE ARRIVED AT

A decision is arrived at through a demonstrable process of reasoning based on the facts proven in evidence and the applicable law.

The point has to be made however that a judgment will not be set aside just because of the reasons given were bad if the judgment itself is right. See the case of DAUDU V. FRN (2018) LPELR-43637 (SC). – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA

PRAYERS – CONDUCT OF COURTS IN GRANTING PRAYERS

To complicate matters, the relief granted by the lower court was not even prayed for, by any of the parties but in law, a court can only grant prayers placed before it. – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Nil

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT