CaseLaw
Sidi V. Shaiaban (1992) CLR 2(h) (CA)
Judgement delivered on February 13th, 1992
Brief
Facts
Three farms left behind by one Sidi, are the subject of the dispute between the parties, in this appeal. Before I go into this judgment it is relevant to examine the relationship between Sidi and the parties in this dispute.
Sidi’s father, Isa, was a full brother to one Abdullahi who was the father of Barau, Dantani and Aha’aban. Sha’aban is the father of the respondent. The appellant is the son of one woman called Lantana who is a full sister to Hassatu, Sidi’s wife. When the appellant was about to be weaned, Hasatu brought him to Sidi’s house. Sidi who was childless became a guardian of the appellant. The appellant remained under Sidi’s care up to the time of his death. Sidi got him married, and from the evidence of all the witnesses at the trial Court, the appellant was given all the love and care of son. The appellant told the trial court that Sidi had given him the three farms in dispute as a gift.
The respondent, in his claim before the trial court, asserted that after Sidi’s death his father and two uncles, Barau and Dantani, gave the farms on loan to the appellant. The respondent continued in the explanation of his claim before the court as follows: -“It is now 50 years ago since the day they gave him the lands on loan. My father died 25 years ago. While Barau died 20 years ago and Dantani 25 years ago. When they gave the Defendant the farms they did not retrieve it back from him up to the time of their deaths and ever since the lands remain in his custody they did not ever receive anything from him because my father’s elder brother Sidi married the Defendant’s sister by name Hasatu and it was she who weaned him from childhood when her sister Lasntana brought him to our house as an adopted son (AGOLA). The farmlands are now the legacies of our 3 parents and we want him to give us back to be shared among the legal heirs being an inherited property”.
The trial Area Court directed the parties to call witnesses in proof of their respective claims. The respondent, who was the plaintiff before the court, called three witnesses, and two witnesses testified in support of the appellant. In his judgment, the Kudan Area Court Judge, Muazu Muhammadu, found that none of the witnesses’ testimony was acceptable and invited the appellant, being the person in possession of the disputed farms, to take an oath. The appellant declined to do so. The Judge then turned to the respondent and asked if he was ready to swear. He agreed and took an oath. The three farms were thereafter declared to be the property of Sha’aban, Barau and Dantani, the father and uncles of the respondent.
Dissatisfied with this decision the appellant appealed to the Upper Area Court, Zaria. The Court considered the submissions of both parties before it and the record of proceedings of the trial Area Court, and in a considered judgment, it reversed the decision of the Area Court. The Court based its finding on the principle of Hauzi (Prescription). The conclusion of the appellate Upper Area Court is that the appellant should have been made to swear order to complement his long possession of the farms. The Judge said that since the farms have been in possession of the appellant for more than 20 years after the death of respondent’s father and he had not paid any galla (tribute) to any one and none of the respondent’s parents had raised an issue of inheritance until now, the claim had been caught up by the principle of Hauzi. The Judge thereafter made the appellant to swear and after he had done so he declared title of the disputed farmlands in his favour.
The respondent appealed against the judgment of the Upper area Court to the Sharia Court of Appeal, Kaduna. The Sharia Court of Appeal observed, in its judgment, that the appellant had not satisfied the condition of Hauzi because he did not make it an issue before the Upper Area Court. The Court went further and opined that even if Hauzi applies, the marriage relationship the appellant and Sidi has extended the period of Hauzi between the parities in this dispute to 40 years. It would be only after this period that the appellant could obtain ownership of the farms through the principle of Hauzi. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Upper Area Court and restored the judgment of the trial Kudan Area Court.
The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.