CORAM

---

Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru Justice of the Court of Appeal

Jamilu Yammama Tukur Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Abubakar Sadiq Umar Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Mohammed Baba Idris Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

---

PARTIES

---

SARKIN KUDUN MATSERI

APPELLANTS 

---

MALAM DAN SHARU

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, SHARIA LAW, JURISDICTION, ISLAMIC PERSONAL LAW, LAND LAW, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, COURT OF APPEAL RULES, PARTICULARS OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL, OMNIBUS GROUNDS, ABUSE OF PROCESS, CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This appeal arose from a land dispute that commenced at the Upper Sharia Court Bunza, Kebbi State on June 3, 2016. The Appellant (Sarkin Kudun Matseri) sued the Respondent (Malam Dan Sharu) claiming that their father, Sarkin Kudun Matseri Muhammadu Umaru, had lent a farm to the Respondent’s father, Malam Yahaya, at Fadama Gurguberi. The Appellant claimed the farm was among 13 farms inherited by 18 heirs when their father died in 2003.

According to the Appellant’s case, when he ordered that anyone lending their farm should come for reiteration of the lending agreement, people came including the Respondent. However, when they intended to take possession of their farm, the Respondent’s brother who had returned from Chad claimed that the farm belonged to them.

The trial proceeded with the Appellant calling nine witnesses, but the trial court found that only the evidence of PW4 (Dan Dare Dan Nigeria) was credible. Based on the Book of Risala-Samaruddani at page 607, the trial court offered an oath to the Appellant, who swore that the farmland belonged to his father who had lent it to the Respondent’s father. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the Appellant on January 13, 2017, confirming ownership based on the evidence of one credible witness and the oath.

The Respondent appealed to the Kebbi State Sharia Court of Appeal, which heard the appeal on merits and dismissed it on August 1, 2017, affirming the trial court’s decision. The Respondent then appealed to the Court of Appeal, Sokoto Judicial Division, challenging the jurisdiction of the Sharia Court of Appeal to hear the matter.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Respondent’s appeal on May 25, 2018, holding that the dispute related to a claim of title to land simpliciter and that the Sharia Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The court struck out the Sharia Court of Appeal judgment for want of jurisdiction and remitted the matter to the Kebbi State High Court.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was dismissed.

2. On Issue 1: The Court held that the ground of appeal challenging jurisdiction was sufficiently clear and that Ground 1 was adequate to inform the Appellant that the jurisdictional competence of the Sharia Court of Appeal was being challenged. The Court also held that Ground 2 was a valid omnibus ground that did not require specific particulars.

3. On Issue 2: The Court held that the Court of Appeal was correct in finding that the Sharia Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction. The dispute did not fall within any of the categories specified in Section 277(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, which circumscribes the jurisdiction of Sharia Courts of Appeal to Islamic personal law matters.

4. The Court found that the dispute was neither regarding inheritance, gift, Wakf, or will within the express provisions of Section 277(1) and (2) of the Constitution, but was a claim of title to land simpliciter.

5. The Court emphasized that land disputes can only be determined by Sharia Courts of Appeal if they involve questions of Wakf, gift, will, or succession where the relevant person is a Muslim.

6. The judgment of the Court of Appeal, Sokoto Judicial Division, delivered on May 25, 2018, was affirmed.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the lower Court was right to countenance the issue of jurisdiction raised by the Respondent considering the circumstances of this case?

2. Whether the lower Court was right when it held that the dispute relates to a claim of title of land simpliciter and that the Sharia Court of Appeal, Kebbi State lacked the jurisdiction to hear the appeal?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

PARTICULARS OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL — PURPOSE AND REQUIREMENT

---

It’s trite that particulars of grounds of appeal denote specific details that support the reason why an appeal is filed against the judgment, decision or order of the Court below. Thus, such particulars as provided in the notice of appeal amply afford the appellate Court solid reasons to assess the decision of the Court below with a view to setting same aside, if found to be unreasonable or perverse. The primary object of particulars of grounds of appeal, is to help the Court comprehend the issues raised therein and arrive at a finding whether the Court’s decision should be set aside or upheld. – Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.

 

---

OMNIBUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL — NATURE AND VALIDITY

---

Ground 2 of the Notice, the complaint is against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial of the case, thereby rendering the decision arrived at unwarranted, unreasonable and unjustified. The ground is what is jurisprudentially known as the ‘Omnibus Ground’. It is trite, that an Omnibus Ground is rather a broad, general ground of appeal that tends to challenge the totality of the evidence vis-a-vis the decision of the lower Court. By the Omnibus Ground of appeal, the appellant has the latitude to argue that the decision of the Court below is against the weight of evidence, or is unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence on record.– Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.

 

---

OMNIBUS GROUNDS — NO NEED FOR PARTICULARS

---

Undoubtedly, the said ground is not supported by any particular of error. The reason being, that there is no need for such an omnibus ground of appeal to be supported by a particular of error… that in a civil appeal, a general or omnibus ground of appeal that the lower Court’s decision is against the weight of evidence is proper, permissible, and apt! Undoubtedly, the grounds of the complaint are inherent (embedded) therein, thus there is no need for any further particulars. – Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.

 

---

JURISDICTION AS LIFE-BLOOD OF LITIGATION

---

Jurisdiction is so fundamentally critical that it’s likened to blood upon which the survival of an animal depends… Moreover, jurisdiction is blood that gives life to the survival if an action in a Court of law and without jurisdiction, the action will be like an animal that has been drained of its blood. It will cease to have life and any attempt to resuscitate it without infusing blood into it would be an abortive exercise.– Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.

 

---

CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON SHARIA COURT JURISDICTION

---

It is a trite fundamental principle that in the exercise of its appellate or supervisory powers in appeals emanating from the upper Sharia Courts or upper Area Courts, as the case may be, the Sharia Court of Appeal of a State must restrict itself to questions of Islamic personal law only upon which it’s competent to adjudicate as duly provided under Section 277(1)and(2) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended (supra).– Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.

 

---

LAND DISPUTES IN SHARIA COURTS — LIMITED SCOPE

---

Land disputes can only be pertinent for determination of Sharia Court of Appeal if it involves any question of Wakf, gift, will or succession where the endower, donor, testator or deceased person is a Muslim. The dispute between the Appellant and the Respondent does not involve any of the matters I mentioned above. The Sharia Court of Appeal has therefore no jurisdiction to adjudicate in the dispute. – Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.

 

---

LACK OF JURISDICTION — NULLITY OF PROCEEDINGS

---

It is equally a well settled doctrine that where a Court arbitrarily assumed jurisdiction, entertained and determined a matter upon which it lacks the requisite jurisdiction, the entire proceedings before the Court are tantamount to nullity, no matter how eloquently decided or determined. – Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.

 

---

CONSTITUTIONAL CLASSIFICATION — SIMPLE LAND TITLE DISPUTES

---

The dispute in the instant case is neither regarding a claim for inheritance, nor that of a gift, a Wakf, or a will within the express provisions of Section 277(1)and(2) of the 1999 Constitution… I am of paramount view point that the dispute cannot by any stretch of imagination come within the purview of the provisions of Section 277(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended (supra). – Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.

 

---

SUBSTANTIVE JURISDICTION — DISTINCTION FROM PROCEDURAL

---

This contention of Counsel overlooked the fact that the issue of jurisdiction raised by the Respondent in the appeal to the Court of Appeal was on the substantive jurisdiction of the Sharia Court of Appeal to entertain his appeal from the Upper Sharia Court, and not one of procedural jurisdiction. It is settled law that an issue of substantive jurisdiction can be raised by either party or even by the Court suo motu at any time and it makes no difference that it was the Respondent who filed the appeal in the Sharia Court of Appeal that raised it. – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF JURISDICTION — DUTY TO DETERMINE

---

The issue of Jurisdiction is very fundamental as it goes to the competence of the Court or Tribunal. If a Court or Tribunal is not competent to entertain a matter or claim or suit, it is a waste of valuable time for the Court to embark on the hearing and determination of the suit, matter or claim. It is therefore an exhibition of wisdom to have the issue of jurisdiction or competence determined before embarking on the hearing and determination of the substantive matter. – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED AT ANY STAGE

---

The issue of jurisdiction being a fundamental issue, it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings in the Court of first instance or in the appeal Courts. This issue can be raised by any of the parties or by the Court itself suo motu. When there are sufficient facts ex facie on the record establishing a want of competence or jurisdiction in the Court it is the duty of the Judge or Justices to raise the issue suo motu if the parties fail to draw the Court’s attention to it.– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

PARTICIPATION DOES NOT ESTOP JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE

---

The fact that a party participated in a matter from commencement until judgment does not estop the party from raising the issue of jurisdiction on appeal… It is an elementary and cardinal principle of the exercise of jurisdiction that where the Court lacks jurisdiction the parties cannot confer and vest jurisdiction on it. Accordingly, the fact that the parties fought a case erroneously on the basis that the Court had jurisdiction when there was none cannot estop a party from subsequently taking the contrary position. – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

JURISDICTION CANNOT BE CONFERRED BY CONSENT

---

Jurisdiction cannot be acquired by consent of the parties, nor can it be enlarged by estoppel… This principle is fortified by the well settled principle that the issue of jurisdiction which determines the competence to exercise jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of trial and indeed even for the first time on appeal.– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

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

2. Court of Appeal Rules 2016

3. Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Amendment Decree No. 26 of 1986

4. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979 (defunct)

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT