Hamadu Hunare V. Yaya Nana & Anor (1996)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

WALI, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Jos Division Court of Appeal by the appellant who was the plaintiff at the trial court.

The facts of the case in a nut shell are as follows:

The appellant was the plaintiff in a retrial suit before Kumo Area Court Judge, Bauchi State, presided over by a senior Area Court Judge. It was in respect of a claim of a farmland in possession of the respondents who were the defendants in the trial court. The appellant was claiming that the farmland in dispute originally belonged to his grandfather, Garba Taliyaje, on whose death the same was inherited by Buba and Umaru, the latter being the father of the appellant.

When Buba died the farmland remained with Umaru. It was Umaru the appellant’s father who lent the farmland to Shehu who was a friend to the appellant’s father. Apparently, after the death of the appellant’s father, he made abortive attempts to regain possession of the farmland. Before Shehu died he shared the disputed farmland between the respondents. Since then the farm has been in undisputed and undisturbed possession of the respondents without let or hinderance from anyone.

In the trial court both parties called witnesses to prove their respective claims. The learned trial Senior Area Court Judge gave judgment for the appellant as plaintiff on the ground that-

“……investigation clearly disclosed that the disputed farmland was originally cleared by his grand father (Garba Taliyaje) and after his death, Umaru, the plaintiffs father inherited the farm and accordingly lent it out to Alhaji Shehu who did not return it to the owner up to the time he died.

Therefore the plaintiff assumed the rightful person to stands owner (sic) of the purported land and I accordingly declared (sic) him so. This is in compliance with Ashal-Almadarik page seventy-one (71).”

Dissatisfied with the trial court’s judgment, the respondents (as appellants) appealed to the Upper Area Court, Kumo.

The Upper Area Court, after examining its jurisdiction under S. 59(2) of the Area Courts Edict, 1967 took additional evidence by recalling and re-examining the witnesses that testified before the trial court, and in allowing the appeal, it concluded as follows:-

“And had the disputed farm land actually been the property of Buba and Umaru, they would have sued M. Shehu ever before he died, but that wasn’t the case. The purported farm land even took thirty years in the custody of M. Shehu, and the plaintiff/respondent did not sue him neither sued his children before any court.

I am satisfied with the evidence (sic) put forward by the appellant’s witnesses, their corroborated evidence (sic) over-weighted. The parallel evidence (sic) of the plaintiff/respondent’s witnesses. And even if the disputed farm was given to M. Shehu by the plaintiff/respondent by his father or by his uncle or otherwise by Jauro Yaya, it is now his property and his children inherited their father’s farm land.”

The learned Upper Area Court Judge relied on Mayyara Vol. II in coming to his conclusion.

The appellant/plaintiff appealed to the Sharia Court of Appeal Bauchi, against the Upper Area Court’s judgment. The Sharia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the trial Court’s Judgment, reasoning as follows:-