SUNDAY NDIDI V THE STATE
June 3, 2025MALLAM JIMOH SALAWU & ANOR VS MALLAM ALIYU A. YUSUF & 2 ORS
June 3, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2007) Legalpedia (SC) 11031
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri May 11, 2007
Suit Number: SC.108/2002
CORAM
COKER JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
NIKI TOBI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURTFRANCIS FEDODE TABAI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
NIKI TOBI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURTFRANCIS FEDODE TABAI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
NIKI TOBI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURTFRANCIS FEDODE TABAI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
NIKI TOBI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURTFRANCIS FEDODE TABAI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
MR. DAVID ODETAYO. APPELLANTS
MR. MICHAEL BAMIDELE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appeal was against the Court of Appeal’s decision that the high court has no jurisdiction in land situated in non-urban area. The parties however submitted 9 issues for the determination of the court of appeal. Of the 9, the court gave ruling on 1 of them.
HELD
In allowing the appeal but remitting same to the Court of Appeal for the remaining 8 issues which were submitted to it to be resolved one way or the other the court held that the High court has concurrent jurisdiction with area or customary courts on land in rural areas.
ISSUES
“Whether the Court of Appeal was right in law to hold as it held that the Kwara State High Court lacked original jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the authorities of Oyeniran v. Egbetola (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt. 504) 122 and Salati v. Shehu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 15) 98 in the light of Adisa v. Oyinwola (2000) 6 SCNJ 290 which judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court on 23rd June 2000.”
RATIONES DECIDENDI
JURISDICTION OF THE STATE HIGH COURT VIS-A-VIS sAREA OR CUSTOMARY COURTS
“By the decision of this court in Adisa v. Oyinwola (supra) the position now is that a State High Court has concurrent jurisdiction with Area or Customary Courts on land in rural areas. The unlimited jurisdiction of the State High Court in civil and criminal matters is only subject to the provisions of the Constitution. Neither the Land Use Act in its entirety or any other law for that matter could take away, limit, restrict or detract from that unlimited jurisdiction. It is now clear and beyond any argument that section 41 of the Land Use Act 1978 cannot oust the unlimited jurisdiction of the State High Court as provided by section 236 of the Constitution as amended. “. (Per Katsina-Alu JSC).
LIMITATION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE AREA COURTS OVER LAND MATTERS
“This court also held that from the commencement of the Land Use Act (28th March, 1978), the jurisdiction now exercised by Area Courts in the Northern States of Nigeria in land matters is limited to disputes on lands which are subject to Customary Right of Occupancy, granted by Local Governments. They have no jurisdiction at all to entertain disputes on lands subject to statutory right of occupancy granted by the Governor”. (PER NIKI TOBI JSC)
CASES CITED
1. Oyeniran v. Egbetola (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt. 504) 122 and Salati v. Shehu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 15) 98.
2. Adisa v. Oyinwola (2000) 6 SCNJ 290.
3. Alhaji Salati v. Alhaji Shehu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 15) 198
4. Alhaji Sadikwu v. Alhaji Dalori (1996) 5 NWLR (Pt. 447) 151
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Constitution of the federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
2. The Land Use Act, 1978.
