SABO ILU V. THE STATE
April 19, 2025ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC) V. RIVERS STATE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION & ORS
April 19, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2025-04) Legalpedia 55823 (CA)
In the Court of Appeal
Abuja
Fri Mar 7, 2025
Suit Number: SC.CV/86/2022
CORAM
Ibrahim mohammed musa saulawa JSC
Tijjani abubakar JSC
Jamilu yammama tukur JSC
Abubakar sadiq umar JSC
Mohammed baba idris JSC
PARTIES
1. SAMA’ILA MUHAMMAD
2. SAMAILA BAWA
3. DAHIRU ISA
APPELLANTS
ALHAJI UMARU
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ISLAMIC LAW, EVIDENCE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, APPEAL, JUDICIAL DISCRETION, SHARIA LAW, OATH ADMINISTRATION, BURDEN OF PROOF, AGRICULTURAL LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This case originated from an action brought by the Appellants (as Plaintiffs) against the Respondent at the Lower Sharia Court, Goronyo, Sokoto State. The Appellants sought damages in the sum of N335,750.00 for the destruction of their farms allegedly caused by the Respondent’s livestock.
The Lower Sharia Court dismissed the Appellants’ suit, finding insufficient evidence to support their claims particularly as no oath was administered during the trial. Dissatisfied, the Appellants appealed to the Upper Sharia Court, Wurno Division, which exercised its discretion to amend the judgment of the trial Court and directed the Respondent to swear an oath denying the Appellants’ allegations.
The Respondent declined to take the oath, and the Court, without explaining the consequences of his refusal, required the Appellants to swear affirmatively to their claims. Upon swearing the oath, judgment was entered in favor of the Appellants.
Aggrieved with the judgment of the Upper Sharia Court, the Respondent appealed to the Sharia Court of Appeal, Sokoto State, which upheld the decision of the Upper Sharia Court while noting that the Respondent’s refusal to take the oath was fatal to his defense.
Further dissatisfied with the judgment of the Sharia Court of Appeal, the Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal raising a sole ground of appeal. In its judgment, the Court of Appeal found in favor of the Respondent and set aside the judgments of both the Upper Sharia Court and the Sharia Court of Appeal.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court vide their Notice of Appeal raising 3 (three) grounds of appeal.
HELD
1.The appeal was allowed.
2.The Court held that the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Sokoto Division in Appeal No. CA/S/4S/2019, delivered on the 25th day of June, 2020 was set aside.
3.The Court found that the learned trial Judge had used his discretion not to warn the Respondent on the implication of not taking an oath, and that this discretion should not be interfered with by appellate courts.
4.No order as to cost.
ISSUES
1.Whether the Court of Appeal ought to have dismissed appeal CA/S/4S/2019 in light of the incompetent processes filed by the Respondent?
2.Whether the lower Court rightly adjudicated and determined Appeal No. CA/S/4S/2019 when the issues raised and canvassed by the Respondent therein did not emanate from the judgment of the Sharia Court of Appeal?.
3.Whether the lower Court erred when it held that the condition precedent for administering oaths were not complied with in this case?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
NOTICE OF APPEAL – PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL:
“I am of the view that any challenge to the competence of a Notice of Appeal is a challenge to the competence of that appeal. It is imperative to recognize that the purpose of the notice of appeal is to inform the parties of the specific aspect of the lower Court’s judgment that will be contested. Once the contested portion of the judgment becomes clear to all the parties involved, the notice of appeal may lose some of its perceived importance. The Notice of Appeal assumes its true significance as a reflective lens through which the Court peers into the heart of the appeal. These grounds are not mere formalities but serve as an initial inquiry into the merits of the case, offering a preliminary glimpse into its potential trajectory. While they do not solely determine the appeal’s outcome, they act as a beacon, guiding the Court to
GROUNDS OF APPEAL – EMPHASIS ON SUBSTANCE OVER FORM:
“The essence of the grounds of appeal is to give sufficient notice to the adverse party of the nature of the appellant’s compliant that such adverse party will be confronted with in Court. Once the notice is passed and the adverse party reacts to it without any complaint, it means the notice is clear and well understood. In Aderounmu v. Olowu (2000) SCNJ 180, (2001) 4 NWLR (Pt.652) 253 at 272 Paragraph a-e, which was cited and relied upon, by learned counsel for the Respondent, this Court per Ayoola JSC said: “The rules of our appellate procedure relating to formulation of grounds of appeal are primarily designed to ensure fairness to the other side. The application of such rules should not be reduced to a matter of mere technicality whereby the Court will look at the form rather than the substance. The prime purpose of the rules of appellate procedure, both in this Court and in the Court of Appeal, that the Appellant shall file a notice of appeal which set forth concisely the grounds which he intends to rely upon on the appeal and that such grounds should not be vague or general in terms and must disclose a reasonable ground of appeal, is to give sufficient notice, an information to the other side of nature of the complaint of the Appellant and consequently of the issues that are likely to arise on the appeal. Any ground of appeal that satisfies that purpose should not be struck out notwithstanding, that it did not conform to a particular form.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.
ISLAMIC LAW AND PROCEDURAL TECHNICALITIES – EMPHASIS ON SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE OVER TECHNICALITIES:
“It is trite that under Islamic Law, a Court is duly accorded with an unfettered discretion to consider facts and circumstances of the case before it and do justice to the respective parties devoid of technicalities. The Courts look at the substance rather than the form. Thus, a Court under Islamic Law is not restricted to the issues raised by the parties for determination in the case or appeal, provided there are sufficient materials upon which a just decision can be reached by the Court. The grounds of appeal or issues raised before a Court under Islamic Law need not to be framed in a technical manner or legal phraseology. A critical examination of the grounds of appeal before the lower Court reveals that the issue of Nukool was raised and the lower Court made a pronouncement in its findings at page 32 of the record. Same already reproduced in this judgment. The issue of Nukool is therefore not a fresh issue that require leave before it could be raised.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.
ISLAMIC COURTS AND ADHERENCE TO TECHNICAL PROCEDURES – COURTS’ DUTY TO SEEK TRUE JUSTICE:
Within the noble tradition of Islamic law, both the trial and appellate Courts are not confined by the limitations of the grounds or issues presented by the parties. In their pursuit of justice, these Courts are called upon to transcend the narrow boundaries of partisan arguments, guided instead by the immutable and universal principles that govern the case. The Court’s sacred duty is to weave the threads of justice into a fabric that reflects the truth of the matter regardless of whether every thread has been articulated by the parties. The Judge is thus not a passive observer but an active agent of justice, endowed with the wisdom to apply the relevant law in its most complete and equitable form. This ensures that justice is not constricted by human limitations but is elevated to its highest ideal.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.
MALIKI SCHOOL ON OATH ADMINISTRATION – PROCEDURE WHEN DEFENDANT REFUSES OATH:
“In the Maliki School, a nuanced approach is adopted. If the defendant refuses the oath, the Judge turns the oath back to the plaintiff who may then swear, and the judgment is delivered based on this refusal and coupled with the plaintiff’s oath. This principle is rooted in the timeless principles of fairness and equity, ensuring that the refusal of the defendant does not hinder the pursuit of justice.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.
ADMINISTERING OATH IN MALIKI SCHOOL – REQUIREMENT TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF CONSEQUENCES:
“It is essential to note that the jurists of the Maliki School, the applicable legal framework in this region, have deliberated on whether the defendant must be informed of the consequences of refusing the oath. There exist two distinct views -one asserts that such a notification is recommended, but not obligatory, while the other maintains that the failure to inform the defendant does not invalidate the judgment.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.
JUDGE’S DISCRETION ON INFORMING CONSEQUENCES OF OATH REFUSAL – DISTINCTION BETWEEN MANDATORY AND RECOMMENDED PRACTICE:
“What becomes apparent from the foregoing is that some of the jurists of the Maliki School, as expressed in their esteemed works, regard informing the Respondent of the consequences of his refusal to swear an oath as a recommended practice, though not mandatory. Failure to do so does not, in their view, invalidate the judgment rendered by the Judge. However, a contrasting view is found within other scholarly texts where some jurists elevate the informing of the Respondent about the consequences of his refusal to take the oath to a condition precedent for the admissibility of the returned oath to the plaintiff.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.
JUDICIAL DISCRETION IN OATH ADMINISTRATION – DETERMINATION LEFT TO JUDGE’S DISCRETION:
“I am of the view that, the Maliki school of thought, which forms the applicable Islamic law in Nigeria, does not establish a definitive or binding position on this matter. Consequently, I am inclined to hold that the determination is best left to the discretion of the presiding Judge. If the Judge is firmly convinced that the defendant is unaware of the implications of refusing to take an oath (nukul), it becomes incumbent upon the Judge, in such circumstances, to inform the defendant of the consequences of refusing to take an oath (nukul). However, in the absence of such a belief, it is not obligatory for the Judge to provide this information.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.
BURDEN OF PROOF IN ISLAMIC LAW – ONUS ON PLAINTIFF WITH REBUTTAL BY DEFENDANT’S OATH:
“The onus of proving an allegation is upon the Plaintiff and if the Plaintiff fails to prove the allegation by calling Credible witnesses, then the defendant will take the oath to rebut the claim against him.” – Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.S.C.
REVERSION OF OATH TO PLAINTIFF – CONSEQUENCES OF DEFENDANT’S REFUSAL:
“If the Defendant declined to swear to clear himself, the oath could be given to the Plaintiff and if the Plaintiff takes the oath, he gets judgment in his favour, but if he declines as did the Defendant, his claim will be dismissed as his refusal confirms the position of the Defendant.” – Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.S.C.
INFORMING DEFENDANT OF CONSEQUENCES – RECOMMENDATORY RATHER THAN MANDATORY NATURE:
Based on the aforementioned statements, the majority of Maliki School of thought practiced in this country (Nigeria) has not made it mandatory upon the Judge to explain to a party the consequences of him not swearing an oath and has left everything within the discretion of the Judge so far he is convinced that the party taking an oath is aware of the consequences of not taking same.” – Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.S.C.
EXPLANATION OF OATH CONSEQUENCES – DISCRETION BASED ON DEFENDANT’S KNOWLEDGE LEVEL:
The Jurist also commented further that the Judge is to give the aforementioned explanation only if he does not know the Defendant, or he knows but understands the Defendant to be ignorant or illiterate. But if he knows the Defendant and understands him to be a knowledgeable person, then he does not require to give any explanation to him.” – Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.S.C.
NON-INTERFERENCE WITH JUDICIAL DISCRETION – TRIAL JUDGE’S DISCRETIONARY POWERS:
“In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the learned trial Judge has used his discretion not to warn the Respondent on the implication of not taking an oath, therefore, this discretion should not be interfered with by this Court.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1.Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)
2.Evidence Act, 2011
3.Police Act, 2020
4.African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap A9) LFN 2004
5.Sharia Court of Appeal Law, Sokoto State
