DOKA L.ABARE V HAMMA USMAN WAKIILIN MAGADA

Legalpedia Citation: (2023-05) Legalpedia 76338 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

GOMBE JUDICIAL DIVISION

Tue May 16, 2023

Suit Number: CA/G/87S/2020

CORAM

RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI JCA

MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS JCA

MOHAMMED DANJUMA JCA

PARTIES

DOKA L. ABARE

APPELLANTS

HAMMA USMAN WAKILIN MAGADA

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, LAND LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent herein as plaintiff, instituted a suit against the Appellant as defendant, over a piece of land which he claims belonged to his late father and is part of their family inheritance, before the Area Court Bambam which suit was later transferred to the Upper Area Court Kaltungo (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”), by the Area Court Directorate office.

The Appellant as defendant, denied the claim and in his defense informed the trial Court that he initially was in possession of the said land in dispute based on trust, but later on purchased the land from the Respondent’s deceased father and has been in possession of same peacefully ever since.

During the trial, witnesses were called, documents were tendered, and the trial Court went on a visit to the disputed land after which it affirmed that the land belongs to the Appellant as contained in its judgment at page 37 of the Record of Appeal.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the Respondent appealed to the Court below as Appellant. The Appellant herein as Respondent before the Court below, refused to subject himself to the jurisdiction of the lower Court and challenged same. The Appellant noted that he is of the Christian faith and based on the circumstances surrounding the case as heard and determined by the trial Court, the Appellant refused to subject himself to the jurisdiction of the Court below.

The Court below dismissed the said application and assumed jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal and thus leading to this interlocutory appeal to this Court.

HELD

Appeal allowed

ISSUES

Ø Whether the Sharia Court of Appeal Gombe is saddled with the requisite jurisdiction to entertain a matter of this nature brought before it vide the Respondent’s appeal?

Ø Whether the lower Court’s ruling is reasonably justified reconciling the facts on record?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

JURISDICTION – MEANING AND EFFECT OF JURISDICTION

It is trite that a Court of law cannot confer jurisdiction on itself. Jurisdiction is the power of the Court to decide matters before it. Jurisdiction is a creation of law that binds all parties and Courts respectively and the issue of jurisdiction cannot be overemphasized. It is the bedrock upon which a Court of law stands in order to ensure proper adjudication and it is so fundamental that once the issue of jurisdiction is raised at any point in a proceeding, the Court hearing the matter has a duty to determine it first before if need be, taking any other step in the proceeding. This position of the law was stated by the Supreme Court in the case of AJAOKUTA STEEL CO. LTD VS. G. I. & S. LTD (2019) LPELR – 46929 (SC) where it held:

“Jurisdiction remains a central issue to any matter before any Court. Once challenged, the Court is duty bound to determine the case. This is so because of the fundamental nature of jurisdiction in the adjudication process. Therefore, judicial proceedings conducted by a Court that is lacking of necessary jurisdiction, no matter how well same were otherwise conducted would be ab initio null and void….”

Jurisdiction is one of the most contentious matters in civil litigation. This is because jurisdiction is the live wire of every case, and any judicial decision reached in the absence of jurisdiction is void ab initio. A decision reached by a Court in want of jurisdiction can be set aside by the same Court, without offending the functus officio principle. Jurisdiction is so important and central, so much so that failure to raise it at the trial Court cannot amount to waiver on appeal, like other procedural defects. See generally, the cases of A. G. FEDERATION VS. A. G. ANAMBRA STATE (2018) 6 NWLR (PT. 1615) 314, ENUKORA VS. F. R. N. (2018) 6 NWLR (PT. 1615) 355, WEMA SECURITIES AND FINANCE PLC VS. N. A. I. C. (2015) 16 NWLR (PT. 1484) 93, AGBITI VS. NIGERIAN NAVY (2011) 4 NWLR (PT. 1236) 175, A. G. RIVERS STATE VS. A. G. AKWA IBOM STATE (2011) 8 NWLR (PT. 1248) 31; LADO VS. C. P. C. (2011) 18 NWLR (PT. 1279) 689 and OBIUWEUBI VS. C. B. N. (2011) 7 NWLR (PT. 1247) 465.

An objection to jurisdiction could, therefore, be raised for the first time on appeal, with or without the leave of Court. This is because the matter of jurisdiction is one which the Court can raise suo motu, provided that the parties are given opportunity to address the Court on the point raised. See generally, the cases of C. B. N. VS. AKINGBOLA (2019) 12 NWLR (PT. 1685) 84, NDUUL VS. WAYO (2018) 16 NWLR (PT. 1646) 548, NPA VS. AMINU IBRAHIM & CO. (2018) 12 NWLR (PT. 1632) 62, NOCLINK VENTURES VS. AROH (2020) 7 NWLR (PT. 1722) 63, MINISTER OF WORKS & HOUSING VS. SHITTU (2007) 16 NWLR (PT. 1060) 351 and MOSES VS. STATE (2006) 11 NWLR (PT. 992) 458.

A Court of law is not just clothed with jurisdiction simply because it is a Court of law, however, its constitution and the scope of its adjudicative powers also go a long way in ensuring that its exercise is not done in futility. In the case of AGBOGUNLERI VS. DEPO & 3 ORS (2008) 1 S. C. (PT. II) @ PG. 180, the Supreme Court held that:

“A Court or Tribunal is said to be of competent jurisdiction if it is established by law as against a kangaroo’s Court. It is presided over by a person competent in all respect and has the authority to adjudicate disputes in that Court. It has long been settled that a Court is said to be competent when: (i) it is properly constituted with respect to the number and qualifications of its members and none of the members is disqualified for any reason, (ii) the subject matter of the dispute is within its competence and jurisdiction, (iii) the action is initiated by due process of law and not in abuse of the Courts process and, (iv) any condition precedent to the exercise of its jurisdiction has been fulfilled.”

See also the case of MADUKOLU VS. NKEMDILIM (1962) ALL NLR (PT. 2) 581.

Flowing from the foregoing, a Court undertakes an exercise in futility when it acts without the requisite jurisdiction.

Section 277(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended provides for the establishment and jurisdiction of the Sharia Court of Appeal. – Per M. B. Idris, JCA

JURISDICTION – JURISDICTION OF THE SHARIA COURT OF APPEAL

In view of the claim of the Respondent at the trial Court and having regard to the provisions of Section 277(2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, the jurisdiction of the Court below is restricted to matters involving the application of Islamic Personal Law only, the claim of the Respondent has nothing to do with Islamic Personal Law at all, and I so hold.

The Court below lacks the jurisdiction to hear the matter before it because the subject matter of the case is not within the scope of the lower Court’s jurisdiction. The subject matter of the case is wholly anchored on title over the parcel of land that has been confirmed to the Appellant and is yet to be contested, and this cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered as one that can be adjudicated under the Islamic Law. Therefore, the Court below lacks the capacity to entertain the claim of the Respondent which is anchored on title to land. – Per M. B. Idris, JCA