The claim of the plaintiff/respondent against the defendant/appellant at the Maradun Area Court as per page 4 lines 9 – 14 of the records was as follows:-

“I, Alhaji Abdullahi, I am suing Yusufu because the land which is left by our deceased father by then I was at Kano, it was later when I came back to take my own share I discovered that the land is with Yusufu and when I asked him he told me that he bought the land in dispute. That is why I institute an action against him.”

On being confronted with the plaintiff/respondent’s claim before the Judge at the Area Court, Maradun, the defendant/appellant denied this claim and claimed that he bought the farmland in dispute from the father of the respondent for the sum of 18 pounds (N36.00). The case proceeded to trial. Before the trial court, the defendant/appellant informed the court he had no witnesses to call to prove the purchase stating that the transaction took place between himself and the respondent’s father alone. He, however, informed the court he had no witnesses to call to prove the purchase stating that the transaction took place between himself and the respondent’s father alone. He, however, informed the court that he had a letter dated the 13th day of April, 1988 written for him by the Sarkin Kaya of Maradun many years after the purported sale in which the Sarkin Kaya confirmed the purchase as having taken place between the appellant and respondent’s father. It will be recalled that after the claim of the plaintiff/respondent was read to the defendant/appellant he denied the claim and counter-claimed that he bought the inherited land from the deceased father of the plaintiff/respondent. The Court asked whether the defendant/appellant could produce witnesses to prove his counter-claim. He said he had no witnesses but had a letter which the Sarkin wrote about the purchase. The Court accepted the letter which the plaintiff/respondent claimed to be a ruse as it was written after the death of his late father. On the final analysis the defendant/ appellant could not discharge the onus placed on him on his counter claim. At the end of the trial, the trial Area Court administered oath on the respondent and conferred him with the title to the land in dispute.

Dissatisfied with this decision of the Area Court, the appellant appealed out of time to the Upper Area Court, Talata Mafara, with leave of that court which was granted. The Upper Area Court (hereinafter referred to as the UAC) went through the records and heard the parties. The UAC allowed the appeal. Dissatisfied with the decision of Upper Area Court, the respondent herein appealed to the Sharia Court of Appeal, Sokoto State sitting at Gusau (hereinafter referred to as the SCA). After going through the records, the grounds of appeal and hearing parties’ contentions, the SCA allowed the respondent’s appeal. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the SCA, the appellant has now appealed to this Hon. Court