BELLO IBRAHIM v. HAJIYA MAMI & ORS

Legalpedia Citation: (2023-04) Legalpedia 64042 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden at Kano

Mon Apr 3, 2023

Suit Number: CA/K/54/2019

CORAM

ITA GEORGE MBABA JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

BOLOUKUROMO MOSES UGO JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

USMAN ALHAJI MUSALE JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

PARTIES

BELLO IBRAHIM

APPELLANTS

HAJIYA MAMI
EL-YUSUF INVESTMENT LIMITED
MA’ARUF AUWALU

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

At the trial Court (Kano State High Court), the Plaintiff claimed that the 1^st defendant sold her house at Farm Centre, Kano, without authorization from the owner of the property and that he did not carry out this action as an agent because he sold the property in his name without disclosing the 1st Respondent, or that he was acting as agent of the said 1st Respondent. This defeated his claim (defense) that he was acting on behalf of the plaintiff.

The learned trial Judge gave judgment in favour of the Plaintiff (now 1st Respondent) and granted the reliefs sought against the Defendants (1st Defendant, now Appellant).

The Appellant was aggrieved by the decision hence the instant appeal.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

Ø Whether the trial Court had properly evaluated the evidence of both sides adduced before it, before coming to its decision, granting the reliefs sought by the 1st Respondent;

Ø Whether the decision of the trial Court was not perverse, when it granted the entire reliefs sought by 1st Respondent;

Ø Whether the 4th Defendant (3rd Respondent) was properly joined in the suit, and if not, the effect of same on the entire suit.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

PROPERTY – ONE WHO HAS NO INTEREST IN PROPERTY CANNOT TRANSFER TITLE THEREIN

Of course, one who does not have vested interest in property cannot transfer title therein to another person. Decision of this Court and Apex Court on this are replete. See the case of Ibrahim Vs Shinkaye & Anor (2022) LPELR – 58722 CA:

“It is trite position of the law that in alienation of interest in land, it is only the person who has such interest that can alienate. Conversely, a person who has no interest in land cannot equally give interest in such land. The principle is expressed in the latin maxim ‘Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet’ which loosely means that one cannot give what one does not have. See OYELOLA & ORS V. BABALOLA & ANOR (2015) LPELR-41839(CA).” Per SENCHI, JCA

See also Beyioku & Ors Vs Kolawole & Anor (2021) LPELR – 56252 CA:

“The law is well settled that a person cannot grant a better title than what he has. It is my view that any person, who purports to dispose of a non-existent interest or title in land, does so at his peril, as no title ever passed even from the inception. This Court in ADAMU V. GULAK (2013) LPELR-20844 (CA), sounded it abundantly clear that: “The Principle of nemo dat quod non habet means that a grantor or vendor can only convey to another what he has. Thus, a person who purports to dispose of a parcel of land, which does not belong to him or in which he has no interest, or which is encumbered, to another will be in violation of the above stated principle and this will render the purported sale void ab initio.” See also ADEAGBO V WILLIAMS (1998) 2 NWLR (Pt. 536) 120 @ 128, OLADEJO ADEWUYI AJUWON VS FADELE AKANMI & 10 ORS (1993) ELC 2034 SC AT 1 and AKERELE V ATUNRASE, supra. In the case authority of ALHAJI TIJANI SALAMI VS CHIEF SURAKATU GBODOOLU & 3 ORS. (1997) 2035 SC AT PAGE 1, Y.O. ADIO JSC held that the Principle means that no one gives what he does not possess or does not belong to him.” Per BANJOKO, JCA.

And in the case of Adamu Vs Nigerian Air Force & Anor (2022) LPELR – 56587 (SC), the Supreme Court said:

“It is not correct from the evidence that PW1-PW5 proffered evidence which established a valid title to the land in favour of the appellant because neither the appellant’s pleading nor his witnesses established how the claimed customary owner came across the land in dispute since the said customary owner had not been proved and so Abubakar Haruna cannot be said to have acquired good title or any title to the land endowing him the position to transfer any title or interest to the appellant, as he cannot give what he does not own. This is expressed in a latin maxim: Nemo dat Quod Non Habet. I refer to the case of IBRAHIM v. OSUNDE (2009) 6 NWLR (PT.1137) 382 at 404 S.C, OLUBODUN v. LAWAL (2008) 17 NWLR (PT. 1115) 1 at 36 – 37 and AKINTERINWA v. OLADUNJOYE (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 659) 92 at 105 Paras A-B & 115.”

Per PETER-ODILI, JSC.

– Per I. G. Mbaba, JCA

BUSYBODY – WHEN COUNSEL IS DEEMED TO HAVE ELECTED TO ACT AS A BUSY BODY

Appellant’s Counsel has no vires to complain about the jurisdiction of the trial Court over the 4th Defendant (3rd Respondent) in the circumstances of this case/appeal, unsolicited, as the 3rd Respondent has not filed any appeal against the decision of the trial Court, and has not filed any Brief in this case, nor engaged the Appellant’s Counsel to act for him! I think Appellant’s Counsel was a busybody on the issue.

In the recent case of APC Vs Abubakar & Ors (2023) LPELR – 59564 (CA), this Court held:

I cannot appreciate the vires of Appellant’s Counsel to argue this issue as the 4th and 5th Respondents never contested that Issue in this appeal, and never filed appeal in this case. Appellant’s Counsel has not disclosed his interest in what appears to be exclusively 4th and 5th Respondents’ case, having not been retained by them to raise it. 4th and 5th Respondents needed to file an appeal to raise such complaint, if relevant to them. Appellants’ Counsel was in my opinion, a busybody on the issue. See the case of Kano Road Traffic Agency (KAROTA) Vs Muhd. Sani & Ors (2023) LPELR – 59347 (CA): “I find it rather worrisome, that Appellant’s Counsel… elected to act as a busy body in this appeal, or appears confused as to the brief he argues in this Court… As it is, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents did not raise any complaint against the decision of the trial Court, and so Appellant’s Counsel had no vires to raise and argue any issue on their (2nd and 3rd Respondents’) behalf, unsolicited. I think the entire arguments of Appellant and the appeal should be ignored, being a misadventure.”

– Per I. G. Mbaba, JCA