Mohammed Juwo Vs. Alhaji Shehu (1992)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

KAWU, J.S.C 

The appellant in this appeal was the plaintiff in the Gwaram Area Court where he instituted an action against the respondents and some others, claiming title to some farmlands. He stated his claim in that Court as follows:-

“…….. I am suing Alh. Shehu, Alh. Ibrahim and Sale Sara claiming my father’s farm namely Fulani Dungure who died about 26 years while I was at the age of 9 years in the care of Alh.lbrahim, Alh. Shehu and Sale Sara and when I came back from travelling Sarkin Sara Sule told me that my father’s farm is in the hands of these persons. I have sued before the court.”

The trial Judge then turned to the defendants and asked them what they had to say to the plaintiffs claim, and they stated as follows:-

“We heard him and understood what he said but his farm is not in our hands and his farm was bought by Alh. Ibrahim from Arnadu Mai Alewa/K/Toro but he died now about 29 years and he bought it at the amount of N8.00 and my self Saleh bought the farm from the hand of Bala Dungule at the amount of N7.00 and it is now about 20 years and myself Alh. Shehu bought the farm by division and purchased it from Mairide Oagula and at last I bought all the farm at N180.00 and it is now 27 years.”

At the trial, the plaintiff gave evidence and called three witnesses who supported his claim that the farm in dispute was the property of his late father and that it remained in his possession until his death. The defendants also gave evidence and called witnesses who supported their claim that the farmlands were bought by them. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Area Court Judge accepted the evidence adduced by the plaintiff and rejected that of the defendants. With regard to the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, he stated in his judgment as follows:-

“……. and the court asked the plaintiff Moh. Juwo if he has witnesses to support his claim and mentioned (1) Dalha Bamaina (2) Amado Mai Saje (3) Mallam Zakariya Tadun Maliki Kumbotso. The courts summoned them and heard their evidences in-chief in the presence of Plaintiff Moh. Juwo and the defendants and their testimonies therefore stands (sic)”

In rejecting the evidence given by the defendants, the trial Judge stated in his judgment as follows:

”The Court asked the defendants if they have witnesses to support their ownership. The witnesses of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants do not testify as to their means of obtaining the farm’s ownership because their testimonies failed in toto and there is not any sign that the witnesses know exactly about their respective purchasing of the farm, while Amadu Dawari told the court that he has no witness because the purchase was done without someone in attendance as witnesses of purchase.”

He finally held that the defendants had failed to prove the purchase of the farmlands and awarded the disputed farmlands to the plaintiff.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the respondents herein appealed to the Upper Area Court which allowed their appeal, reversed the decision of the trial court and directed a retrial of the case before Birnin Kudu Upper Area Court, It was the view of the Upper Area Court that since the plaintiff had stated in his claim that he had travelled out of Sara town he should have adduced evidence as to where he had gone so as to enable the Court decide the issues of long possession. The plaintiff appealed against that decision to the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction and his appeal was allowed and the decision of the Upper Area Court set aside and that of the trial court restored. The High Court held that having regard to the failure of the defendants to prove purchase, the trial court was right in rejecting their case. It was the view of the High Court that the issue of long possession did not arise.

Being dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, the respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal and their appeal was allowed. The decision of the High Court was set aside and that of the Upper Area Court restored. It is against the decision of the Court of Appeal that the appellant has now appealed to the Supreme Court on the following two grounds of appeal:-

“1. That the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law and fact and misdirected themselves when they allowed the appeal on the ground of prescription and the right accruing from long possession when that fact was not made an issue at the trial court.

Particulars of Error: