DAHIRU ARDO SADIQ & ORS V AMINU HASSAN BOBBOWA & ANOR.

CORAM

PARTIES

DAHIRU ARDO SADIQ APPELLANTS

AMINU HASSAN BOBBOWA RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellants’ case was that the 2nd Respondent who is their brother sold to the 1stRespondent a portion of the land inherited by them from their mother. The 2nd Respondent instituted an action at the Upper Area Court against the Appellants for the distribution of the remaining estate of their late mother. The Appellants counter-claimed at Upper Area Court for the Land sold by the 2nd Respondent to the 1st Respondent. The Upper Area Court held in favour of the Appellants and set aside the sale of the land by the 2nd Respondent to the 1st Respondent and reverted the land back to the Appellants for distribution amongst all the heirs. The Upper Area Court further ordered that the 2nd Respondent should refund the money he collected for the land to the person to whom he sold the land. The 2nd Respondent’s appealed to the Sharia Court of Appeal was dismissed but the 1st Respondent refused to vacate the property claiming he was aware of the judgments of the two courts. The Appellants hence instituted an action at the High Court of Taraba State sitting at Jalingo, claiming a declaration that the refusal of the 1st Respondent to release to the Appellants their landed property for distribution to the heirs as required by Islamic Injunction and as ordered by the Sharia Court of Appeal of Taraba State is illegal and wrongful, and also for an order of the Court compelling the 1st Respondent to handover to the Appellants the structures erected by him on the land in place of their structures demolished and destroyed. The Respondents on the other hand also counterclaimed for an order of the Court directing the 1st Appellant and the 2nd Respondent to return the proceeds and give account of the sales of their mother’s land. The High Court dismissed both the claims and the counterclaim. The Appellants dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court have appealed to the Court of Appeal.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

Whether the judgment of the trial court dismissing the case of the Appellants on the ground that the case borders on enforcement of judgment of the Upper Area Court II and Sharia Court of Appeal, is perverse and liable to be set aside by this Honourable Court?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

AVERMENT IN AN AFFIDAVIT- STATUS OF AVERMENTS IN AN AFFIDAVIT NOT CLEARLY DENIED

“It is trite law that any averment in an affidavit which has not been clearly, unequivocally and directly denied is deemed admitted. See Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria vs. Wamal Express Services Nigeria Limited (2011) LPELR-1261 (SC) page 14 – 15”