DANDARE HAKIMI BELA’UWA v. NOMA GADO & ORS

CORAM

Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu Justice Court of Appeal

Mohammed Ahmed Ramat Justice Court of Appeal

Abdullahi Muhammad Liman Justice Court of Appeal

PARTIES

DANDARE HAKIMI BELA’UWA

APPELLANTS 

1. NOMA GADO

2. HAKIMI ZAURE

3. NAYAYA MUHAMMAD

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, JURISDICTION, SHARIA LAW, LAND LAW, PROPERTY LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant, Dandare Hakimi Bela’uwa, sued the Respondents at the Upper Sharia Court, Shanga, claiming the return of farmland that was leased to the Respondents by his late father. According to the Appellant, the Respondents had requested to borrow the farm from his late father in exchange for annual benefits. After his father’s death, the Appellant asked the Respondents to return the farm, but they refused. The Respondents denied the Appellant’s claim, asserting that the Respondent deforested the farm when the Appellant’s father was the village head of Bela’uwa, and had remained in possession thereafter.

The matter proceeded to trial with the Appellant calling sixteen (16) witnesses to substantiate his claim. The trial Upper Sharia Court, Shanga, dismissed the claim for want of credible witnesses. The Appellant appealed to the Sharia Court of Appeal, Yauri/Zuru Judicial Division of Kebbi State, which also dismissed the appeal, thereby affirming the judgment of the trial Court. Dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Court of Appeal.

HELD

1. The appeal was allowed.

2. The Court of Appeal held that the Sharia Court of Appeal lacked the requisite jurisdiction to hear and entertain matters relating to title to land simpliciter.

3. Appeal No. SCA/KBS/SHG/26/2022 before the lower Court was struck out.

4. The Court awarded costs of ₦100,000 against the Appellant’s counsel, Bashir Umar, Esq., for deliberately filing the appeal at the Sharia Court of Appeal knowing fully well that it lacked jurisdiction to hear and entertain matters relating to title to land.

ISSUES

1. Whether the Court below had jurisdiction to have entertained the appeal of the Respondent which raised issues bordering on title to land?

2. Whether the Court below’s judgment was justified under Islamic Law?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

APPEAL – NATURE OF APPEAL AND ROLE OF APPELLANT

“The law is trite that an Appellant would be acting within the ambit of the law by presenting his complaint before an Appellate Court, for the rehearing of issues raised and pronounced upon by the lower Court. Similarly, an issue for determination, which is raised from the ground of appeal, is usually a proposition of Law or of fact in dispute between the parties, necessary for determination by the Court and the determination of which would affect the result of an appeal. By and large, an appeal is decided upon the issue formulated for determination from the grounds of appeal.” – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND ISSUES FORMULATED

“Regrettably, there is apparent disconnection between the grounds of appeal and the issues formulated by the Appellant, particularly, grounds two and three of the grounds of appeal as well as Issue for Determination No. 2. In a situation of this nature, where they are not congruent, two consequences flows. One is that the issue raised for determination has not been argued and therefore abandoned. The other is that issue for determination is not derivable from the grounds of appeal. In either case, both cannot stand.” – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

JURISDICTION OF SHARIA COURT – SCOPE AND LIMITATION REGARDING LAND DISPUTES

“Thus, the claim of the Appellant was purely on title or ownership of the farmland in dispute. It is trite that the lower Court (Sharia Court of Appeal) has no jurisdiction in a land dispute where the claim is on the title or ownership of land simpliciter. Muninga Vs Muninga (1997) 11 NWLR (Prt 527) 1 at 12, Jibir Mallam Gambo Vs Janro Hammadu Tukuji (1997) 10 NWLR (Prt 526) 591 at 600 and Usman Vs Kareem (1995) 2 NWLR (Prt 379) 537 at 551.” – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

ETHICS, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE FRIVOLOUS APPEALS – ADMONITION TO LEGAL PRACTITIONERS

“I therefore make bold to say that if counsel such as Y. Y. Gwazawa, Bashir Umar and the likes do not file frivolous appeals, the Khadis of the lower Court would not have the temerity in venturing into areas outside their jurisdiction. If there is anybody that requires admonition of closely looking at the claims of the plaintiff at the trial Court before approaching the Sharia Court of Appeal are those lackadaisical legal practitioners that bombard appellate Courts with useless appeals.” – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

EFFECT OF LACK OF JURISDICTION – APPROPRIATE ORDER TO MAKE

“Having resolved that the lower Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to hear and entertain the subject matter of the Appellant’s claim at the trial Court, Appeal No. SCA/KBS/SHG/26/2022 before the lower Court is hereby struck out. I award the costs of ₦100,000 against the Appellant’s counsel, Bashir Umar, Esq., for deliberately filing the said appeal at the lower Court knowing fully well that it is bereft of jurisdiction to hear and entertain matters relating to title to land simpliciter. Thus, the appeal succeed per force.” – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

CONCURRENCE ON JURISDICTION – APPROPRIATENESS OF STRIKING OUT THE APPEAL

“I must say that his lordship has exhaustively and appropriately dealt with all the issues raised in the appeal. I have nothing more to add. I also hold the view that the lower Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to hear and entertain the subject matter of the Appellant’s claim at the trial Court, Appeal No.: SCA/KBS/SHG/26/2022 before the lower Court is hereby struck out. The appeal succeed per force.” – Per MOHAMMED AHMED RAMAT, J.C.A.

CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS OF SHARIA COURT OF APPEAL’S JURISDICTION

“It is clear that the claim before the trial Court was one of a declaration of title to land. While the trial Court had the original jurisdiction to hear the claim, the lower Court, on the other hand, whose jurisdiction is clearly circumscribed by Section 275(1)&(2) of the 1999 Constitution and which is exclusively appellate, does not extend beyond matters of Islamic personal law.” – Per ABDULLAHI MUHAMMAD LIMAN, J.C.A.

SCOPE OF ISLAMIC PERSONAL LAW – EXCLUSION OF LAND TITLE DISPUTES

“Interestingly, the scope of the jurisdiction is also clearly defined by the items specifically set out as constituting matters of Islamic Personal Law over which the Sharia Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to entertain. The claim of title to land before the trial Court was clearly outside the scope of the appellate jurisdiction of the lower Court.” – Per ABDULLAHI MUHAMMAD LIMAN, J.C.A.

RIGHT TO FILE APPEAL AT APPROPRIATE COURT – EFFECT OF STRIKING OUT

“Consequently, this appeal hereby fails, and this Court lacking the consequential jurisdiction to hear the appeal, it is accordingly struck out and without prejudice to the procedural requirements for filling of appeal at the lower Court, by this order, the defendant is entitled to file a price of appeal at the appropriate Court.” – Per ABDULLAHI MUHAMMAD LIMAN, J.C.A.

NATURE OF CLAIM – DETERMINING JURISDICTION BASED ON CLAIM’S SUBSTANCE

“Turning back to the issue of the lower Court’s jurisdiction, from the Appellant’s claim before the trial Court, it is very clear that same deals with ownership and or possession of farmland. There is no question of inheritance raised or asserted in it. Nor is there any question of Islamic Personal Law as enumerated in the five paragraphs of Section 277(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).” – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

FRIVOLOUS APPEALS – CONSEQUENCE AND SANCTION

“I award the costs of ₦100,000 against the Appellant’s counsel, Bashir Umar, Esq., for deliberately filing the said appeal at the lower Court knowing fully well that it is bereft of jurisdiction to hear and entertain matters relating to title to land simpliciter.” – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

EFFECT OF SUCCESSFUL JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE – OUTCOME OF APPEAL

“Issue No. 1 is therefore resolved in favour of the Appellant who was consistent in invoking the jurisdiction of the lower Court, knowing fully well that it lacks the requisite jurisdiction.” – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

TRIAL COURT’S JURISDICTION VERSUS APPELLATE JURISDICTION – DISTINCTION

“While the trial Court had the original jurisdiction to hear the claim, the lower Court, on the other hand, whose jurisdiction is clearly circumscribed by Section 275(1)&(2) of the 1999 Constitution and which is exclusively appellate, does not extend beyond matters of Islamic personal law.” – Per ABDULLAHI MUHAMMAD LIMAN, J.C.A.

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), Sections 275(1)&(2), 277(2), 36(1)

• Holy Quran, Chapter 49 Verse 6

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT