Judgment
In my view, above is enough for the lower Court to understand whether or not it has jurisdiction in the matter. If it has no jurisdiction, then any pronouncement made except to decline jurisdiction is void. Let me further observe that this Court in SAFETI & ORS Vs. SAFETI & ANR (2006) LPELR–7579 (CA) enumerated reasons for setting aside decision of a lower Court on appeal under Islamic Law.
They are; (1) Where it is in conflict with any provision of the Holy Quran. (2) Where it is in conflict with the provision of any authentic Tradition of the Prophet (PBUH). (3) Where it is in direct conflict with ljma. (4) Where it conflicts with Qiyas. (5) Where it is against popular view of the official Mazhab applicable in the area of jurisdiction or against sound reasoning. (6) Where the Judge lacks jurisdiction. (7) Where it was obtained under fraud, deceit etc. Per I. T. Muhammad, JCA (as he then was) now CJN.
PER MUSALE, J.C.A USMAN ALHAJI MUSALE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment) : This suit as constituted started at Miga Sharia Court, where the appellant sued the respondent claiming 2 farmlands. Miga Sharia Court transferred the suit to Upper Sharia Court, Dutse in Jigawa State. The suit was registered as CV/175/2016 before the Upper Sharia Court (hereinafter trial Court for this purpose). From the record Mal Suleman was the maternal grandfather of the appellant and his brothers. Before his demise, Mal Suleman handed over his 2 farmlands and his grandchildren to Mal Rabiu in trust.
That when the children grow up, Mal Rabiu will then handover the 2 farmlands to them. Mal Rabiu agreed. The appellant is one of the grandchildren of Mal Suleman while the respondent is the son of Mal Rabiu. Not long after, Mal Suleman died. Mal Rabiu kept the trust. After some years, Mal Rabiu fell sick, he gathered his children and his brothers and informed them about the trust. That the 2 farmlands belong to the appellant and his brothers. He directed that the farmlands be given to them if he died. And he did.
Failure to hand over the trust ignited this suit. At the trial Court, the plaintiff/appellant presented his witnesses and closed his case. The defendant/respondent on the other hand chose to take oath. The trial Judge overruled him on this and he appealed to the High Court. His appeal was not successful. The trial Court gave judgment on the testimony of witnesses presented by the plaintiff. It declared the ownership of the farmlands to the plaintiff/appellant. The defendant did not adduce evidence in his favour. See pages 136–137 of the record of appeal.
