MODIBBO ADAMA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, YOLA V IJANDIR ISAAC SAMUEL YARAI
April 1, 2025IBRAHIM ANIMASHAUN v. THE STATE
April 1, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2020) Legalpedia (CA) 81826
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT YOLA
Sun May 31, 2020
Suit Number: CA/YL/172/18
CORAM
PARTIES
ZAKARI SHUAIBU ADAMU
ALHAJI DAUDA ADAMU
AREA(S) OF LAW
Not Avaialble
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant was denied cultivation of his farm land in 2015, he sued the Respondent before the High Court of Adamawa State claiming N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) being general and special damages. The trial court held that the only relief available to the Appellant is retrial/redistribution of the estate of the Appellant’s father as ordered by the Sharia Court of Appeal vide Exhibit E – E7, since the Respondent had bought the farm land vide Exhibit D – D4. After the appeals were allowed at the High Court and the Sharia Court of Appeal, the Appellant planted rice on his inherited farmland in 2015. The Appellant alleged that the Respondent refused to obey the judgments in Exhibits A – A14 and E – E7 destroyed the rice and maize planted by the Appellant on the farm with herbicide. The Appellant as plaintiff instituted an action against the Respondent claiming General and Special Damages of N1, 000,000.00 (One Million Naira) for trespass on his farmland, intimidation and threat to life. The trial court refused all the reliefs sought. Unhappy with the decision of the trial High Court, the Appellant appealed to this court
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
Whether the Trial High Court has the requisite jurisdiction to convert civil claim of damages for trespass to civil appeal and proceeded to set aside the judgment in EXHIBIT A – A14 and affirmed the judgment in EXHIBIT D – D4 whilst this judgment was earlier set aside by the Sharia Court of Appeal Yola vide EXHIBIT E – E7 particularly as both judgments deal exclusively with distribution of estate under Islamic Law. Whether the trial High Court was right to hold that the only relief available to the Appellant is retrial/redistribution of the estate of the Appellant’s father as ordered by the Sharia Court of Appeal, Yola, vide EXHIBIT E – E7 because the Respondent has already bought the farm land though the parties did not seek for retrial, besides EXHIBIT A – A14 has already conferred ownership of the farm land to the Appellant thereby estopping retrial. Whether the trial High Court was right when it refused to make a finding on the incompetent Statement of Defence of the Defendant/Respondent.”
RATIONES DECIDENDI
JURISDICTION OF COURT – DETERMINANTS OF THE JURISDICTION OF COURT
“It is the writ of summons and statement of claim of the plaintiff that determines the jurisdiction of the court. Jurisdiction is the power or authority of a court to adjudicate over a particular subject matter and it is the nature of the claim that has to be considered. See, James Vs. INEC (2015) 12 NWLR (PT. 1474) 12 NWLR (PT. 1474) Page 538 at 597, Paragraphs G – H, Sun Insurance Nigeria Plc Vs. Umez Engineering Construction Company Limited (2015) 11 NWLR (PT. 1471) Page 576 at 604 – 605, PARAS. H – A.”
COURT – WHETHER THE COURT HAS A DUTY TO SET UP A DIFFERENT CASE FOR PARTIES
“It is the law that the court cannot make a case for the parties different from the case set up by them in their pleadings. In Animashawun Vs. Osuma &Ors (1972) LPELR – 49 (SC) P. 21, PARA. D his lordship Fatayi – Williams, JSC summarized the position of the law thus:
“……. It is not the function of a court of trial to raise for the parties issues which they had neither pleaded nor relied upon. The case should be decided on the issues properly raised in the pleadings.”
Similarly, in Obimiami Brick & Stone (Nigeria) Limited Vs. African Continental Bank Limited (1992) LPELR – 2177 (SC) P. 71, PARA E his lordship Omo, JSC held thus:
“It is the plaintiff in a case who sets out what he is claiming and his success or failure must be decided on the basis of his claim(s). It is not the duty of the court to make out a different case for him.”
See, Ojo – Osagie Vs. Adonri (1994) LPELR – 2386 (SC) PP. 19 – 20, PARAS F – A, Kayili Vs.Yilbuk & Ors (2015) LPELR – 24323 (SC) P. 52, PARAS. A – F, Bankole & Anor Vs. Denapo & Anor (2019) LPELR – 46444 (CA) PP. 11 – 12, PARAS. E – A and NBC 1 Vs. Integrated Gas (Nig) Ltd (2005) LPELR (2016) 1 at 21 – 22.”
JURISDICTION OF THE SHARIA COURT OF APPEAL – WHETHER THE HIGH COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN DISTRIBUTION OF ESTATE UNDER ISLAMIC LAW
“Further, Section 277 (2) (c) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) provides thus:
(2) “For the purposes of subsection (1) of this Section, the Sharia Court of Appeal shall be competent to decide –
(c) any question of Islamic personal law regarding a wakf, gift, will or succession where the endower, donor, testator or deceased person is a Muslim.”
From the above, the High Court of a state has no jurisdiction to look into the distribution of estate under Islamic law which Exhibit A – A14 relates to. It is only the Sharia Court of Appeal of a state that can entertain any question of Islamic personal law in respect of succession as in the present case.
JURISDICTION OF COURT – WHETHER THE HIGH COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE SHARIA COURT OF APPEAL
“Further, the trial High Court had no jurisdiction to have held Exhibit D – D4 which had been set aside was first in time and supercedes Exhibit A – A14, the decision of the Upper Area Court in which the Appellant’s late father’s estate was distributed to which there is no appeal. The decision of the trial High Court is erroneous and a nullity. See, Skenconsult (Nig) Ltd & Anor Vs. Ukey (1981) LPELR – 3072 (SC) PP. 21 – 22, PARAS. E – C, Zubair Vs. Kolawole (2019) LPELR – 46928 (SC) PP. 24 – 25, PARAS. E – B, Madukolu Vs. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SC NLR 341, WAEC Vs. Adeyanju (2008) 9 NWLR (PT. 1092) 270, Egunjobi Vs. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (supra) and Oloba Vs. Akereja (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 84) 508.
JURISDICTION OF COURT – WHETHER THE HIGH COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO REVIEW A DECISION OF THE SHARIA COURT OF APPEAL
“Further, the trial High Court and the Sharia Court of Appeal are at par, the high court had no jurisdiction to set aside or to review a decision of the Sharia Court of Appeal, moreso the decision of the Sharia Court of Appeal was not on appeal before the trial high court. See, Customary Court Of Appeal Edo State Vs. Chief (Engr) E.A. Aguele & Ors (2017) LPELR – 44632 (SC) PP. 29 – 31, (2017) 6 SC (PT. VII) P. 1; (2018) 3 NWLR (PT. 1607) P. 369, PARAS. B – D, Owuama & Ors Vs. Obasi & Ors (2010) LPELR – 4371 (CA) PP. 16 – 17, Paras. D – F.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)|
