Consequent to the murder of Alhaji Ramat and one of his three wives, Hajiya Kwayisu by a gang of armed robbers, the relations of Alhaji Ramat, after due consultation with Islamic scholars in keeping with Islamic practice shared the estate of Alhaji Ramat among his surviving heirs in accordance with Sharia principles of succession, A portion of Alhaji Ramat’s estate was allotted to Hajiya Kwayisu. The plaintiffs, Abba Abuna and Goni Adam, children of late Hajiya Kwayisu, brought this action claiming to be entitled to the share allotted to their mother (1/8 of the estate to the wives) which was denied by the defendant, Alhaji Jiddun who was one of the relations of Ramat that shared his estate among the surviving heirs. The reasons for the opposition to the claim by the defendant was that he heard that the plaintiffs’ mother had predeceased Alhaji Ramat (her husband) by death.

Upon this opposition the trial Upper Area Court took the view, and rightly under Sharia Law, that the burden of adducing evidence and establishing the fact of Hajiya Kwayisu predeceasing Ramat was on the defendant. After due evaluation by the trial court of the evidence of defendant’s only two female witnesses, the court held that those witnesses did not elicit nor establish the defendant’s assertion and accordingly gave judgments for the plaintiffs in terms of the sharing and allotment of 1/8 share in favor of Hajiya Kwayisu.

On appeal, the Sharia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the ground that the trial court, under the Sharia Law was in error to have allotted a share to the deceased Hajiya Kwayisu as one of the heirs of late Alhaji Ramat.

One may pause to observe briefly that the decision of the Sharia Court of Appeal did not focus on the point in controversy between the parties on appeal, to wit, whether the appellant in that court had duly established his assertion, by evidence, that the late Hajiya Kwayisu predeceased her husband, Ramat.

Be that as it may, on a further appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of the Sharia Court of Appeal and restored the judgment of the trial Upper Area Court. The defendant again has appealed to this Court.