CORAM

---

RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL

MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL

MOHAMMED DANJUMA JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

MAI AHMAD ZONGOMA ZARAMI APPELANT(S)

APPELLANTS 

---

MUSTAPHA MAI ABBA RESPONDENT(S)

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ISLAMIC PERSONAL LAW, LAND, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant was the defendant at the trial Court (Upper Area Court (Mallam Sidi)). The Respondent was the Plaintiff at the trial Court. He sued the Appellant claiming for the return of their inherited farmlands. The Appellant denied the claim and the matter went into trial. After the close of evidence, the land in dispute was visited by the trial Court sequel to which parties addressed the Court.

​The trial Court entered judgment in favour of the Appellant. The Respondent was not satisfied with the said judgment and filed an appeal to the Gombe State Sharia Court of Appeal. In the cause of hearing the appeal, the Appellant as Respondent in that Court, raised the issue of jurisdiction, but the Court went ahead to hear the appeal and thereafter entered judgment in favour of the Respondent setting aside the judgment of the trial Court and awarding title of the farmland in dispute to the Respondent.

The Appellant is not satisfied with the judgment of the lower Court and filed the Notice of Appeal to this Court sequel to the granted order of this Court.

 

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal dismissed

 

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether considering the claim of the respondent before the trial Court, the Gombe State Sharia Court of Appeal has the jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal between the parties?

 

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

JURISDICTION – DETERMINATION OF THE JURISDICTION OF COURTS TO ENTERTAIN MATTERS

---

It is trite that in any adjudication, it is the case of the Plaintiff as stated in the Writ of Summons or Statement of Claim or any Originating process that determines the jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine that case. In the case of UWAZURIKE & ANOR V. NWACHUKWU & ANOR (2012) LPELR-19659 (SC), it was held that:

“It is settled law that jurisdiction is a peripheral matter which must be determined, when raised by the Court before proceeding to determine the matter on the merit if need be. Also trite, is the principle of law that it is the case of the Plaintiff as stated in the Writ of Summons or Statement of Claim or any Originating Process that determines the jurisdiction of the Court.”

Per ONNONGHEN, JSC (PP. 15-16, Paras. F-A)

Similarly, in the case of LADO & ORS VS CPC & ORS (2012) 206 LRCN 176 AT 188 RAS 5, it was held thus:

“While it is settled law that it is the claim of Plaintiff as evidenced in the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim that determines the jurisdiction of the Court, where however from the totality of the pleadings of both parties and the evidence adduced to establish same, it becomes obvious that the Court has no jurisdiction as regards the subject matter of dispute or that the claim, in reality, cannot come within the statutory jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will take into account the totality of the facts pleaded by the parties and evidence adduced to establish same in determining whether the Court had jurisdiction or not.”

It should be emphasized that whenever there is a challenge to jurisdiction, the Court should expeditiously attend to it in limine, particularly if the case is at the trial stage and even if the case is at the appeal stage. The issue of jurisdiction is quite fundamental to the question of the competence of the Court adjudicating. It is either the Court has jurisdiction to hear a case or it has not. See the case of OGBORU & ANOR V. UDUAGHAN & ORS (2012) LPELR-8287 (SC). – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA 

 

 

---

SHARIA COURT OF APPEAL – JURISDICTION OF THE SHARIA COURT OF APPEAL

---

In the case of BABAYO & ORS V. ALI & ORS (2021) LPELR-54771 (CA), this Court held that:

“the jurisdiction of the Sharia Court of Appeal of Bauchi State or any state for that matter is circumscribed by the unequivocal provisions of Section 277 (2) (a)-(e) of the 1999 Constitution. As such, the exercise of supervisory and appellate jurisdiction is entirely statutory. This means that, the Appellate Court derives it jurisdiction from the statute creating it including the Constitution and other enabling statues. Section 277 of the 1999 Constitution (As amended) provides as follows: “277- (1) The Sharia Court of Appeal of a state shall, in addition to such jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by the law of the state, exercise such appellate and supervisory jurisdiction in civil proceedings involving questions of Islamic Personal Law which the Court is competent to decide in accordance with the provisions of Subsection (2) of this Section (2) for the purposes of Subsection (1) of this Section, the Sharia Court of Appeal shall be competent to decide – (a) any question of Islamic Personal Law regarding a marriage concluded in accordance with that law, including a question relating to the validity or dissolution of such a marriage or a question that depends on such a marriage and relating to family relationship or the guardianship of an infant; (b) where all the parties to the proceeding are Muslims, any question of Islamic Personal law regarding a marriage, in the validity or dissolution of that marriage, or regarding family relationship, a founding or the guardianship of an infant; (c) any question of Islamic Personal law regarding a Wakf, gift, will or succession where the endower, donor, testator or deceased person is a Muslim; (d) any question of Islamic Personal law regarding an infant, prodigal or person of unsound mind who is a Muslim or the maintenance or the guardianship of a Muslim who is physically or mentally infirm; or (e) where all the parties to the proceedings, being Muslims, have requested the Court that hears the case in the first instance to determine that case in accordance with Islamic Personal law, any other question.” Per IDRIS, JCA (PP. 12-14, Paras. E-C). – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA 

 

 

---

APPEAL – WHERE AN ISSUE RULED ON IS NOT APPEALED

---

In any case, the Appellant is not in a position to raise the issue of jurisdiction before this Court having raised same and was overruled at the lower Court and the Appellant did not appeal against the ruling. It is settled principle of law that issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings even for the first time at the Apex Court. But there are some exceptions to the general rule which includes where a party raised the issue at the lower Court and the Court ruled that it has jurisdiction and the party did not appeal against the ruling. In the case of OKERE & ORS V. GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE & ORS VOL. 5 L.L.A.C 139 AT 142 RATIO 2, the Apex Court held thus:

“A Court of trial or a Court exercising appellate jurisdiction must first of all determine whether or not it has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter presented to it for adjudication. Though the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time in the trial Court or in an appellate Court, the right to do so like any other right is not absolute. There are certain circumstances where the issue cannot be raised unless certain requirements are complied with. In this appeal, there are two factors that inhibit the right of the respondent to raise the issue of jurisdiction and by extension on the competence of the lower Court to determine same. The first one relates to the principle of formulation of issues in an appeal. By that principle, any issue for determination in an appeal not related to or based on a ground of appeal is not only incompetent but completely valueless to the determination of the appeal and must be ignored. See Omo V. Delta State…

The second prong being the fact that at the Court of trial the now respondents who were defendants had raised the issue of jurisdiction on the basis that the action of the appellants herein who were plaintiffs was statute barred pursuant to Section 10 of the Public Lands Acquisition Law Cap 105 Laws of Oyo State of Nigeria 1978 and Limitation Law Cap 6 4 Law of Oyo State Nigeria 1978. In a considered ruling, the Court of trial held that the suit was not statute barred since 1979 Constitution protected it. The respondents herein did not appeal at the Court of Appeal. Since there was no appeal on that issue of jurisdiction that ruling and what it pertained remained  valid and subsisting and cannot now be smuggled in under the guise of the principle upon which the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time and at any level. I refer to the case of Madukolu V. Nkemdilim; Osakwe V. Federal College of Education, Omo V. Judicial Service Commission Delta State- Per Peter Odili JSC (Page 182-183 Paras. E-H, A-B) …” – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) 

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT