CORAM

---

Mohammed Lawal Garba Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Adamu Jauro Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Habeeb Adewale olumuyiwa abiru Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Abubakar Sadiq Umar Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

---

PARTIES

---

UMMARU MATANKARI

APPELLANTS 

---

HAJIYA RABI YARON MANYA

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

AREAS OF LAW: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, JURISDICTION, SHARIA LAW, ISLAMIC PERSONAL LAW, GIFT, SUCCESSION, INHERITANCE, PROPERTY LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, APPEAL

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent, Hajiya Rabi Yaron Manya, sued the Appellant, Ummaru Matankari, at the Upper Sharia Court, Jega, claiming that her late husband’s maternal uncle, Ibrahim Tungar Kade (also referred to as Mal. Bawa), gave a gift of a house to her husband, Yaron Manya, over 40 years ago. The Respondent and her husband had been in possession and occupation of the house throughout this period. After her husband’s death, the Appellant claimed rights over the house, which he had never raised during the husband’s lifetime.

To prove her claim, the Respondent called two male witnesses, Salisu Saidu and Umaru Rabiu, whose evidence supported the claim of gift. Two other witnesses testified about a document written at the Village Head’s house regarding the gift of a farm, which was not part of the claim before the trial court.

The Appellant denied the Respondent’s claim and counter-claimed that the house belonged to his maternal grandfather, Isah, and that his mother, Aishatu, was entitled to a share thereof. He called three male witnesses: Liman Sanusi, Alh. Zaki Nufawa, and Muhammad Sam Nufawa, who gave evidence that the house belonged to Isah, the Appellant’s maternal grandfather.

The trial court confirmed that the house was subject to inheritance and entered judgment in favor of the Appellant. Aggrieved by this decision, the Respondent appealed to the Sharia Court of Appeal, Kebbi State, which annulled the trial court’s decision and affirmed the Respondent’s right to the house as a gift. The Appellant then appealed to the Court of Appeal, Sokoto Division, which resolved the appeal in favor of the Respondent. Further dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the jurisdiction of the Sharia Court of Appeal to adjudicate over the matter.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was dismissed.

2. The Court held that the Sharia Court of Appeal of Kebbi State had the requisite constitutional jurisdiction to adjudicate over the Respondent’s appeal under Section 277(2)(c) of the 1999 Constitution.

3. The Court found that the subject matter of the claim was a gift under Islamic personal law, not a pure declaration of title to land.

4. The Court held that both the Respondent’s claim (involving a gift) and the Appellant’s counter-claim (involving inheritance and succession) fell within the jurisdiction of the Sharia Court of Appeal as they involved questions of Islamic personal law.

5. The Court affirmed that the Respondent’s claim was clearly in respect of a gift of property given to her late husband by his uncle over 40 years prior.

6. The decision of the Court of Appeal, Sokoto Division, was affirmed.

7. Parties were ordered to bear their respective costs.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the lower Court was right when it held that the Respondent’s case falls within the purview of Section 277(2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) hence Sharia Court of Appeal, Kebbi State has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal which is in relation to declaration of title to land?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

NATURE OF JURISDICTION – STATUTORY BASIS AND ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS

---

The issue of a Court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate over a matter at all stages in the judicial hierarchy is a narrow one, it being an issue or question of strict law of whether the Court possesses or is vested with the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate over a matter or not. There is no hybrid situation on the question of jurisdiction of a Court to adjudicate over a case or matter because it is purely statutory; the Courts being creatures of the statutes, from which they derive their judicial power and authority to take cognizance of and conduct valid proceedings in which they can issue competent, legally binding and enforceable orders, decisions, judgments, etc. Where the relevant statute, including the constitution, does not confer the requisite jurisdiction on a Court established by it, the Court cannot arrogate to itself and the parties to an action or matter, cannot either by acquiescence or consent confer the jurisdiction on the Court over the matter. Jurisdiction can neither be presumed nor implied. – Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF JURISDICTION – CONJUNCTIVE REQUIREMENTS

---

The basic ingredients of the jurisdiction of a Court to competently adjudicate over a matter are now common knowledge in all Courts of superior record in Nigeria having been repeatedly stated since the locus classicus case of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (supra). They are: (a) when the Court is properly constituted as to number and qualification of its members. (b) when a case is brought to the Court by due process of the law. (c) there is no feature or factor which in law, deprives or prevents it from the exercise of the jurisdiction; and (d) when all the conditions precedent for its exercise of the jurisdiction have been fulfilled. These are the essential and crucial elements and ingredients of jurisdiction that have to be conjunctively present or met for a Court to competently exercise jurisdiction over a matter and the absence of any one of them will deprive the Court of the requisite jurisdiction. – Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION IN ADJUDICATION – FOUNDATION OF EVERY CASE

---

The importance of jurisdiction in any adjudication cannot therefore be over-emphasized. It is often described as the life wire of the adjudication process, without which every step taken in a case amounts to a nullity, no matter how well conducted and no matter how erudite the decision emanating therefrom. Jurisdiction is the foundation of every case filed in Court. Once there is no nothing can stand on it. – Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

DETERMINATION OF COURT JURISDICTION – PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF CLAIM

---

Generally, in order to determine whether a Court has jurisdiction to entertain a matter, the Court looks at the plaintiff’s statement of claim before it. In other words, jurisdiction of a trial Court is determined by the subject matter and claim before the Court.– Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN ISLAMIC LAW – CLAIM AS SOLE DETERMINANT

---

In Islamic law, the subject matter of dispute confers jurisdiction, and it is not permissible for a Judge to entertain any dispute in respect of which he has no subject matter jurisdiction. In determining jurisdiction, the claim of the plaintiff is the sole determinant. Where the subject matter is not within the jurisdiction of the Court, then there is nothing to adjudicate and the decision reached in the absence of jurisdiction is a nullity.– Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

JURISDICTION OF SHARIA COURT OF APPEAL – CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

---

From these provisions, it is clear that the Sharia Court of Appeal is vested with requisite constitutional jurisdiction to adjudicate and exercise appellate and supervisory jurisdiction in all civil proceedings involving questions of Islamic personal law regarding ‘wakf, gift, will or succession etc’, where the donor or deceased person is a muslim. – Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

DEFINITION OF GIFT UNDER ISLAMIC LAW – ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS

---

The word ‘gift’ was defined in Hari v. Tsoho (2016) 4 SQLR (Pt. Ill) 563 to mean:- ‘The idea of a gift under the Islamic Law is the transfer of a corpus of a thing to the donee. Thus, in order to be valid, the gift must satisfy the following conditions: (a) A declaration of the gift by the donor. (b) Acceptance of the subject matter of the gift by the done himself or by his agent. (c) Possession should be delivered by the donor to the done.’– Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

JURISDICTION OVER GIFT MATTERS – CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

---

With the definition of the word ‘gift’ and the nature the claim of the Respondent before the trial Court, it is beyond rational argument that the Sharia Court of Appeal had/has the requisite constitutional jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate over the appeal by the Respondent against the decision/judgment of the Upper Sharia Court, since the subject matter of the claim was a gift and not one of pure ownership of the house in question.– Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

LIMITATION OF SHARIA COURT JURISDICTION – PURE LAND OWNERSHIP DISPUTES

---

The law is firmly established that the Sharia Court of Appeal of a State is not vested with the statutory jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate over appeals involving the issue or question of pure declaration of ownership or title to land, simpliciter, since it is not an issue or question relating to Islamic personal law, as provided for in Section 277 of the Constitution. – Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

APPELLANT’S COUNTER-CLAIM AND ISLAMIC PERSONAL LAW – INHERITANCE AND SUCCESSION

---

In addition, the counter-claim by the Appellant before the trial Upper Sharia Court involves and relates to and totally based on succession or inheritance of the house in question from the Appellant’s maternal grand-father; Isah, through the Appellant’s mother. This was the counter-claim considered on the merit and eventually granted by the trial Court on the basis of such inheritance and succession, which are pure issues of Islamic Personal Law.– Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

COMBINED JURISDICTION BASIS – GIFT AND INHERITANCE

---

Consequently, on the basis of both the claim by the Respondent which involved a gift arising from inheritance and the Appellant’s counter claim; also based on inheritance and succession from his mother; which are issues or questions involving Islamic Personal Law, it is manifest that the Sharia Court of Appeal is imbued with the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate over the appeal against the decision of the trial Court, by the Respondent. – Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

SUBJECT MATTER CONFIRMATION – GIFT NOT TITLE DECLARATION

---

Once more, from the above claim, the subject matter in this appeal is a gift and not declaration of title or ownership of land; simpliciter. – Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 277 – RECENT SUPREME COURT AUTHORITY

---

In the recent authority of the Supreme Court, Ali v Maiduguri (2024) 17 NWLR (Pt 1967), Section 277 of the 1999 Constitution received judicial interpretation thus: ‘By virtue of Section 277(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the Sharia Court of Appeal of a State shall, in addition to such other 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… It is clear to my mind that the respondent’s claim which borders around a share of the inheritance that has been allegedly withheld from the respondent by the 1st appellant falls within Section 277 (supra). The provision covers dispute over any inheritance which is being allegedly withheld from the heirs. Even the claim of gift raised by the 1st appellant falls within the said provisions. The lower Courts therefore had the requisite jurisdiction to have adjudicated on the matter.’ – Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

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

 

---

OTHER CITATIONS

---

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT