Alhaji Musa Wali V. Suleiman Wakilin Ibrahim (1996)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
OKUNOLA, J.C.A.
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Kano State Sharia Court of Appeal holden in Kano delivered on 4/10/91.
The facts of this case which has been laid out by the Sharia Court of Appeal judgment on appeal is briefly put as follows:
This suit originated from the Upper Area Court No.2 Gyadi-Gyadi, Kano in a suit number 10/86 dated the 3rd day of March, 1986 where the plaintiff, Sulaiman, standing on behalf of Ibrahim Wudil sought for the inheritance of the late M. Sirake, which they succeeded and which included a house situate at No. 106, Sani Mainagga. He said he was suing Isyaku and 6 others. He stated that Sirake was a cousin to his father Ibrahim as they shared the same grand father. In other words Ibrahim, the plaintiff and Sirake were first cousins. They have same grand father, Adamu while the defendants, Isyaku and his brothers are grand children to Sirake’s brother, called Salihu. After the trial, the court entered judgment in favour of and awarded the estate to the grand children of the deceased, i.e. Isyaku and not to the first cousin, who is Ibrahim. Dissatisfied with this decision the plaintiff appealed to the Sharia Court of Appeal, Kano and later to the Court of Appeal Kaduna. The Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the Sharia Court of Appeal and affirmed that of the trial upper Area Court, and made an order to the Sharia Court of Appeal, Kano to rehear the suit, but by a different panel- suit No. CA/K/1425/86 dated the 9th day of February, 1988. In compliance with this order, the court, presided over by a new panel of Kadis reheard the appeal. After listening to the parties and going through the records the Sharia Court of Appeal reversed the decision and awarded the estate to Ibrahim who is on the same level (with Sirake, the deceased on the matter of succession. The court has therefore returned the succession in dispute to Sulaiman Ibrahim, the plaintiff.
At this juncture, it is necessary to observe that even before the quashing of the decision of the lower court, the defendants have already sold the house given to them by the court, house No. 106, Sani Mainagge to one Alhaji Inuwa Sulaiman at a price of N3,600.00 who in turn sold the house to Alhaji Musa Wali at a price of N4,500.00. With the new decision of the Sharia Court of Appeal the house, subject of succession, has left the hands of the defendants, Isyaku and others to the hands of Ibrahim Sulaiman’ s father. For this reason the court laid some conditions that could put the house into the plaintiff’s hands without causing harm to the people who bought the house, i.e Alhaji Inuwa Sulaiman the respondent herein and Alhaji Musa Wali, the appellant herein. These conditions were as follows:
(a) That the defendants, Isyaku and others will return the money they sold the house at N3,600.00
(b) That the first buyer of the house i.e Alhaji Inuwa Sulaiman who in turn sold it to Alhaji Musa will return the profit he made on selling the house i.e N900.00
(c) That the remaining matter will then be between the plaintiff, Ibrahim to whom the court has given the house and the last buyer of the house at a price of N4,500.00. In whose hands the house is i.e Alhaji Musa Wali.
(d) A choice will be given to the plaintiff, Ibrahim or his representative, to either take the house and pay to the last buyer of the house i.e. Alhaji Musa Wali, difference between the value of the house at the time when Alhaji Musa bought it i.e N4,600.00 and the value as at the time of judgment, what ever the value was.
(e) And if the balance is collected what ever amount it might be, it should be summed up with the other (N3,600.00) and the N900.00 totalling N4,500.00 which is the amount Alhaji Musa Wali bought the house from Alhaji Inuwa Sumaila.
If all these amounts summed up, what ever it totals to, that would be the entitlement of Alhaji Musa Wali, then he had to quit from the house and hand same to the legal owner, who is Ibrahim or his son Sulaiman.
(f) But if Ibrahim or Sulaiman, the plaintiff said he prefers the money, then he would be given the N4,500.00 only.
So, it was based on this that the plaintiff/respondent in this court, Sulaiman chose to take the house, and that was the reason why the Sharia court of Appeal ordered the Upper Area Court No.2 Gyadi-Gyadi (hereinafter referred to as the UAC) to execute their decision based on the choice of the plaintiff/respondent, Sulaiman standing for Ibrahim by taking the house and paying the balance of the difference between the first valuation of the house and the second to Alhaji Musa Wali the appellant who now possesses the house. The executing court after a long delay, went into action. After the executing court completed its investigation in a suit No. K/421/87 dated the 10th day of December, 1987, it ordered Alhaji Musa Wali to take his money and quit the house. This order was given on the 23rd day of June, 1989. Dissatisfied with this order of the UAC, Alhaji Musa Wali appealed to the High Court of Justice, Kano on the 3rd day of July, 1989 from where the appeal was transferred to the Sharia Court of Appeal, Kano on the 25th day of June, 199. The Sharia Court of Appeal shall hereafter be called SCA.
On receipt of this appeal, the SCA went through its earlier judgment leading to the remittance of the case to the UAC for the execution of its said judgment which culminated in the order of the UAC now appealed against. The SCA also went through the grounds of appeal lodged by the appellant herein to the court which were framed thus:
(1) I am aggrieved with the decision, because the trial court will/find the transaction (of the house), though the Shari a Court of Appeal, did not nullify it.
(2) The court sent a term for valuing the buildings in the house, without informing our ward head so as to notify the neighbours for justice.
(3) The court pushed aside the valuation made of N10,000.00, N8,500.00 and N8,000.00, after it was confirmed to the court that there was no single building in the whole house. I erected all the buildings therein up to roofing.
(4) ‘The court was showing its clear interest in the case, because of the fact it was threatening me that I must quit from the’ house or it will have me imprisoned, without even reading the end of the suit. Therefore I do not agree I am seeking for my right.
(5) Because the court got all this suit and it knew it very well, so that is why I am thinking (the court did not do justice to me).
On these grounds, the appellant addressed the SCA thus:
That I told the Upper Area Court to go and inspect the house, or else to send a term for such an inspection but the court was deaf to my prayer. When the litigants appeared before us, we asked the appellant whether he has more other grounds. He said ‘Well, that’s all but (the court) said that I would be given only N600.00 as the balance for the difference. After the appellant had completed his address the court turned to the respondent Sulaiman and he also spoke thus: Pertaining his first ground, the Upper Area Court I did not say it nullified the transaction, except if it is the payment o(those monies that he meant by nullification of the transaction. And his second ground, actually the ward head has sent his representative, in person of Lawan, and all the neighbours were duly informed. And his third ground, it was not so, the court did not disagree with the value of N9,000.00, for the valuers, i.e from my side his side and those appointed by the court all did the valuation of the house as it is today, i.e at the time of the judgment, N8,000.00 and also that of the earlier building at N7,400.00. Therefore the difference became N600.00. His fourth ground, the court has already confirmed the house to me, it does not belong to those who sold it to them, hence it ordered him to quit from the house. On his fifth ground, the judge did what is in order for it only complied with what it has been ordered to do by the Sharia Court of Appeal. His sixth ground is not true, because the court sent its representative together with mine and that of the appellant. I wish to add that the appellant has on his own said he has agreed with the valuation made, and it is there on page 6 line 15. Also pertaining all the monies which the court has been ordered to collect, they are all in its custody, the monies are the N3,600.00 and the N900.00 which Alhaji Inuwa made as a profit.
The second respondent in his own address, before the SCA, Alhaji Inuwa said, (I have no knowledge of all what they are saying. I was the one who bought, the, house from the first heirs at a sum of N3,600.00 and there after sold it to Alhaji Musa at a sum of N4,500.00-where I made a profit of N900.00. Therefore the judge of the Upper Area Court Gyadi-Gyadi, called me and ordered me to bring back the N900.00 I made as a profit. The judge forced me and after a period of one month I tried and got the amount and took it to the judge. This is all I know.
When the court turned to the appellant whether he has additional explanation to make he said, (pertaining what Alhaji Inuwa Sumaila said I do accept. It is true that he only made a profit of N900.00 which the judge asked him to return and he did so, the court received, the amount, but pertaining the valuation mentioned by Sulaiman it is not true. It was builders who pertained the valuation and the house was but an undeveloped plot, and you (Sharia Court of Appeal, Kadis) inspected it. I had it rebuilt. When it was valued, it reached N10,000,00; N8.500.00; and N8,000.00 where at last the court accepted the valuation of N8,000.00. But there was never any valuation of N7,400.00 and also no neighbour has been a witness (at the valuation). This is all my explanation. Observing that the second respondent, Alhaji Inuwa has already paid the money at the trial court, i.e. the N900.00 the court discharged him, so as not to inconvenience him unnecessarily.
In the court session of the 23rd day of August, 1991, the appellant presented a lawyer to stand for him, in the person of M. Zubairu Umar. But, for us to understand the root of this suit, the court started by asking the respondent to make it clear to us who were the people who performed the valuation he said it was made at the trial court, and he should repeat the nature of the valuation he mentioned in the said court. He said the valuation of the house before any renovation therein was made at N7,400.00, and the people who made it are, Alhaji Ado, the court messenger, Alhaji Ado (a valuer appointed by the court) M, Sulaiman, (valuer brought by Musa) and Alhaji Alhassan (a valuer brought by me), And they made this valuation with full permission of the court.
The appellant’s lawyer said, in our opinion the trial court erred by allowing the valuation, for it could have been more better if the court allowed the valuation of the house as before the selling of the house to Alhaji Inuwa, i.e. N3,600.00 and about. But how could it be after about ten years, it would be said the house was valued as at past at N7,400.00. It is our opinion that this is unresponsible to say the difference in valuation within ten years falls at N600.00 only. And secondly, we observed that the valuation made by valuers in the copy of proceedings was only once, while it should be in three sections, which they should present to the court and then the court would decide on one. Even though the court said it accepted the valuation, in my opinion it could have been more just for the court to choose the most favourable value in law, for they (the litigants are ignorant. And I am begging this court to send for another valuation which it should use so as to see justice is done. This is all I wish to say.
The respondent replied to the lawyer’s submission by restating his earlier submission on the grounds. The court then recalled the 3 valuers together with the Wardhead and his representative for further interrogation. The court heard them. They reported all they had said before after which the SCA delivered its judgment. The court in order to determine which of the two valuations (be the original and the second) stands recalled the appellant and the respondent and they informed the court that there was no kitchen at any time in the house valued. The SCA then agreed with the parties and the valuers that the best way to determine the initial value of the house will be to consider the actual amount that the appellant Alhaji Musa bought the house from Alh. Inuwa Sumaila which is the value before any renovation. The second value or the current value will be the value which the parties have been maintaining and which was supported-by the lower court N8,000.00. Based on the above premise, the SCA held as follows:
(1) That the initial value will be N4,500.00; and
(2) That value as at the time of the decision of the lower court will be N8,000.00. Hence forth the difference between the first value-and, the last is N3,500.00 and it is the amount that the respondent M. Sulaiman Ibrahim will pay to the appellant, Alhaji Musa Wali, to take over his house of succession. And in his case Alhaji Musa should collect the money and add it up with the N4,500.00 at the lower court and quit from the house immediately.
With these minor correction, the SCA allowed the appeal bought by the appellant.
Dissatisfied with this judgment of the SCA the appellant has again appealed to this court on the following grounds, viz:
- The lower court erred in law when it accepted the valuation of the trial court when same has been discovered to be doubtful
- The lower court erred in law when it failed to take into consideration the current market value of the property.
- The court erred in law when it failed to abide by a valuation made by another court against which there was no appeal and therefore subsisting.
The appellant further sought from the Court of Appeal that the appeal be allowed, the valuation made by court below set aside and an order for fresh valuation be ordered.
The appellant, had no representation and he appeared before us in person. He did not file the appellant’s brief either. He adopted the appellant’s case as presented before the Upper Area Court No.2 Gyadi-Gyadi. Kano and the Kano State Shari Court of Appeal, Kano as contained in the record of proceedings. He said he had nothing to add and urged the court to allow the appeal. It must be noted here also that the respondent too was not represented by counsel. He too did not file any respondent’s brief. By way of reply he also adopted his case as presented before the two lower courts. He too submitted that he had nothing to add but urged the court to dismiss the appeal.
I have considered the arguments of both the appellant and the respondent in this appeal vis-a-vis the records and, the prevailing law. Before giving my views on the issues raised by the parties in this appeal, I want to state that I have made a comprehensive review of the facts of this case as they took place in the two lower courts and in this court so as to give a clear picture of the case. This is moreso as both parties did not file their briefs and had to rely on the record of proceedings in addition to their addresses before us. As indicated supra, the parties were not represented by counsel and merely had to rely on their case as presented before in two lower courts as contained in the records. Be that as it may, it is my considered view that the main issue for determination from my consideration of the grounds of appeal and the arguments of the parties vis-a-vis the prevailing law is:
whether the valuation made by the Sharia court of appeal in the circumstance of this case accords with the principles of Islamic Law.
I have gone through the records of proceeding in the court below. I have also examined the arguments of the parties before us vis-a-vis the records and the prevailing law. It was discovered from the records that the Sharia court of appeal invoked the provision of S.11 of the Sharia Court of Appeal Law 1960 as amended by recalling the parties and their witnesses as well as the valuers called by the parties and that appointed by the court below and come to the (valuation) conclusion which now forms the basis of the judgment being challenged by the appellant.
The procedure adopted by the SCA was to conduct in-depth investigation regarding the issue brought before them which was whether or not the various valuation 3 which had been done before was properly done and if not to remedy any defect arising from the earlier ones. This they did in my view very successfully. The question to be asked is whether this procedure accords with the laid down principles of Islamic Law? I will answer this power in the affirmative. This is because the original and primary source of Islamic law – the Holy Quran provides that no judge shall give judgment on any issue brought before him without conducting proper investigation. See Quran Ch. 49 verse 6 P. 70. This goes thus:
“O ye who believe
If an evil-liver brings upon tichings (complaint) investigate it
Lest ye smite some folk in ignorance
And afterward repent of ye did.”
From the foregoing provisions, I hold that the procedure adopted by the SCA in arriving at this judgment accords with the principles of Islamic Law. What is more, it was seen from the records that the appellant agreed to the modalities leading to the valuation finally approved by the SCA and even had input from a valuer appointed by him. Under Islamic Law, such an admission by a sane adult binds him for, where a claim is admitted there is no need to call say witness. See Issa v. Alabi (1961 – 1989) 1 SLRN 177; see also Las and Anor v. Iro (1961-1989) 1 SLRN (1961-1989) 1 SLRN (1961-1989) 189.In sum this appeal fails and it is dismissed. The judgment of the Kaduna State Sharia Court of Appeal on valuation of the disputed property is hereby affirmed with N500 costs to the respondent.
Other Citations: (1996)LCN/0249(CA)
