The appellant filed a suit claiming the farmland in dispute which is in the possession of the respondent. The appellant averred that the farmland in dispute was given on loan to the respondent by one Nakura, on consideration that the respondent shall pay tribute form the proceeds of yields from the farm.

The appellant explained further that Nakura was the husband of one Hajo who was a sister to his mother, Maryam. After the death of Nakura, the appellant demanded for the return of the farmland to the rightful heirs, but the respondent refused, saying that he purchased the farm from Nakura.

The respondent, on his part, told the trial Upper Area Court that Nakura sold the farmland to his grandmother. His grandmother gave it to his father, Bahago, and he was born in the said farm, 35 years before the commencement of the trial at the Upper Area Court.

The trial Upper Area Court directed the appellant to produce his witnesses in proof of his claim. His first witness was Mamman Magawata Dan Gidan Dankura, and his testimony was as follows:

"I heard that the farm belonged to Idrisu's grandfather Uba and he sold it to our parents. Apart from this I know nothing."

The second witness was Muhammadu Masara whose testimony goes thus:

"The farm belonged to Uba though we do not know when she farmed the land, but we know that Dankura's father took Uba's farm in custody, but how this farm got into Ahmadu's possession. I don't know".:

Thereafter the court asked the appellant whether he had any other witness who could testify that the farm belonged to Hajo (appellants maternal aunt and Dankura's wife). The appellant answered as follows:

"No, I have no other witness to bring".

The Court then turned to the respondent who produced two witnesses, Manuga and Jae. Manuga told the court that Nakura sold the disputed farm to the grandmother of the respondent. She gave the farm to the respondent's father, Garba Nagomaje who also gave it to his son. Ja'e also gave similar evidence. As quite correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the court ought to have given judgment after it had heard the testimonies of two witnesses from both the appellant and the respondent. Instead, the Upper Area Court Judge adjourned the case to another date and when the parties appeared they were permitted to call three additional witnesses each.

At the close of the hearing the trial judge reviewed the evidence adduced before him, and concluded as follows:

"Mallam Idrisu was able to present three witnesses who testified that that farm originally belonged to his grandmother. Ahmadu also presented three witnesses who testified that the farm was sold to his grandmother Nana by Dankura".

The court then asked the appellant if he was ready to take an oath that the farm belonged to his grandfather Uba and not Dankura. The appellant took the oath and was declared the owner of the farmland.

Dissatisfied with this decision the respondent appealed to the Sharia Court of Appeal, Sokoto. The Sharia Court of Appeal considered the appeal and found that none of the witnesses called by the appellant gave evidence in support of his claim (Da'awa); that Nakura gave the farm in dispute on loan to the respondent. The court then referred to the Tradition of the Holy Prophet which says:

"The burden of proof rests on the plaintiff while the defendant is to swear if he denies the claim".

The Sharia Court of Appeal thereafter observed that since the appellant had failed to produce sufficient evidence in order to prove his claim, and that the respondent was in possession of the farm in dispute, it was the respondent who should be asked first, if he was ready to swear and not the appellant as the trial Upper Area Court erroneously did. The Sharia Court of Appeal asked the respondent to swear that,

"Dankura did not lend the farm to him and that it was his grandmother who bought the farm from him (Dankura) who subsequently gave it to Bahago (his father) and which he inherited from him".

The respondent took the oath and the Sharia Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the Upper Area Court, Gwadabawa, and allowed the appeal. It is against the said decision that the appellant filed this appeal.