In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Abuja
On Friday, the 4th day of July, 2025
Before Their Lordships
Mohammed Lawal Garba
Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa
Adamu Jauro
Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru
Abubakar Sadiq Umar
Justices, Supreme Court
SC/CV/80/2024
Between
Ummaru Matankari APPELLANT
And
Hajiya Rabi Yaron Manya RESPONDENT
(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Mohammed Lawal Garba, JSC)
Facts
The Respondent instituted the action leading to this appeal against the Appellant, claiming entitlement to the house that was gifted to her late husband by his late maternal uncle, (Ibrahim Tungar Kade), which they have been in possession of, and occupied for over 40 years before the death of her husband. At trial, the Respondent called four witnesses. Two witnesses testified in support of her claim, that Ibrahim Tungar Kade had gifted the disputed house to her late husband. The remaining two witnesses testified regarding a document prepared at the House of the Village Head, regarding the gift of a farm, which was not the subject-matter of the suit, and their evidence did not relate to the alleged gift of the disputed house.
In defence, the Appellant denied the Respondent’s claim; he contended that the house formed part of the estate of his maternal grandfather – Isah. He asserted further that his mother, Aishatu, was entitled to inherit a share of the property. In support of his case, the Appellant called three witnesses, all of whom testified that the house belonged to Isah.
At the conclusion of the trial, the court found that the house constituted inheritable property and consequently, entered judgement in favour of the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the decision, the Respondent appealed to the Sharia Court of Appeal, Kebbi State. The Sharia Court of Appeal set aside the judgement of the trial court, and held that the house had been validly gifted by Ibrahim Tungar Kade to the Respondent’s late husband, thereby affirming the Respondent’s entitlement to the property.
The appeal by the Appellant to the Court of Appeal, Sokoto Division, was unsuccessful. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Sharia Court of Appeal. Still dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed further to the Supreme Court.
Issue for Determination
The Supreme Court adopted the sole issue formulated by the Appellant for the determination of the appeal, to wit:
Whether the lower court was right in holding that the Respondent’s case falls within the purview of Section 277(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), hence, the Sharia Court of Appeal, Kebbi State, has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal which is in relation to declaration of title to land.
Arguments
Arguing the sole issue, the Appellant submitted that jurisdiction is fundamental to the validity of judicial proceedings, and that any decision rendered without jurisdiction is a nullity. He argued that the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the Claimant’s case, as disclosed in the statement of claim. Relating this principle of law, he submitted that the claim of the Respondent relates to declaration of the title and legal right of ownership of the house in dispute, having asserted that the property was gifted to her late husband by his maternal uncle – Ibrahim Tungar Kade. He contended that the central issue before the trial court was the determination of the true owner of the property, and that any finding on the validity of the alleged gift necessarily required a prior determination of title to the house. The Appellant posited that the Upper Sharia Court, ought to have first made an inquiry regarding the rightful and true owner of the house in dispute.
The Appellant argued that the house does not belong to Ibrahim Tungar Kade, the maternal uncle of the Respondent’s late husband; hence, Ibrahim cannot give a gift of what he does not have – Ibrahim v Ogunde & Ors (2009) LPELR-1411(SC). That the gift can only be valid, if the ownership of the house in dispute resided in Ibrahim Tungar Kade exclusively. He argued further that from the standpoint of Islamic law of inheritance, the house in dispute belonged to the five children of the original owner, who is also the grandfather of the Appellant. Under Islamic law, a valid gift can only be made by a person who is the lawful owner of the property. He maintained that since the house belonged to his maternal grandfather – Isah, and formed part of his estate, Ibrahim could not have validly transferred the property by way of gift. He submitted that the Respondent was therefore, required to establish her root of title to the property. He argued further that the dispute between the parties was fundamentally one relating to declaration of title and ownership of land, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Sharia Court of Appeal under Section 277(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). That only the High Court of Kebbi State possessed the requisite jurisdiction to determine such a dispute. He therefore, urged the Supreme Court to allow the appeal, set aside the judgements of the lower courts, and remit the matter to the Chief Judge of Kebbi State for reassignment to a Judge of the court, sine the dispute relates to declaration of title to land.
Responding to the submissions of the Appellant, the Respondent argued that the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the Claimant’s case, and not by the Defendant’s defence. She argued that her claim bordered on the entitlement to the house given as a gift to her late husband by Ibrahim Tungar Kade, in which they have been in occupation for over 40 years, and it was only after the demise of her late husband that the Appellant decided to lay claim to the house.
Relying on Section 277(2)(c) and (e) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), she submitted that disputes involving gifts, succession, and other questions of Islamic personal law fall within the appellate jurisdiction of the Sharia Court of Appeal, where the donor or deceased person is a Muslim. She contended that the present dispute squarely deals with the validity and effect of a gift under Islamic law and therefore, falls within the jurisdiction of the Sharia Court of Appeal. The Respondent submitted further that the evidence before the trial court established that Ibrahim had gifted the house to her late husband, and that there was no genuine dispute regarding the existence of the gift. Accordingly, both the Sharia Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal were right to assume jurisdiction and determine the matter. She argued that the Appellant, having maintained before the trial court that the property formed part of an estate subject to Islamic inheritance, cannot subsequently contend that the dispute was solely one of title to land. She therefore, urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgement of the Court of Appeal.
Court’s Judgement and Rationale
In its decision on the sole issue, the Supreme Court held that where the enabling statute, including the Constitution, does not vest a court with jurisdiction over a matter, neither the court nor the parties can confer such jurisdiction upon it. Their Lordships affirmed that this principle applies equally, under both English common law and Islamic law and procedure.
The Supreme Court held that in Islamic law, it is the subject- matter of the dispute that confers jurisdiction on the court, and it is not permissible for a Judge to entertain any dispute in respect of which he has no subject-matter jurisdiction. In determining jurisdiction, the claim of the Plaintiff is the sole determinant. Where the subject-matter is not within the jurisdiction of the court, then there is nothing to adjudicate and the decision reached in the absence of jurisdiction is a nullity.
Relating the principle above to the present case, the Apex Court held that by the provisions of Section 277 (1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the Sharia Court of Appeal is vested with the requisite constitutional jurisdiction to adjudicate and exercise appellate and supervisory jurisdiction in all civil proceedings involving questions of Islamic personal law regarding “wakf, gift, will or succession etc”, where the donor or deceased person is a Muslim.
The Supreme Court held that word “gift” has been defined in the case of Hari v Tsoho (2016) 4 SQLR (Pt. III) 563, thus: “The idea of a gift under the Islamic law, is the transfer of a corpus of a thing to the donee. Thus, in order to be valid, the gift must satisfy the following conditions :- (a) a declaration of the gift by the donor; (b) Acceptance of the subject-matter of the gift by the donee himself or by his agent; and (c) Possession should be delivered by the donor to the donee”.
Based on the definition of “gift” highlighted above, and the nature of the claim of the Respondent before the trial court, it is beyond argument that the Sharia Court of Appeal has the requisite constitutional jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate over the appeal by the Respondent against the judgement of the Upper Sharia Court, since the subject-matter of the claim was a gift and not one of pure ownership of the house in question. It was the Appellant who denied the claim of the Respondent before the trial court and counter-claimed that the house was owned by his maternal grandfather.
Their Lordships held that the law is firmly established that the Sharia Court of Appeal of a State is not vested with the statutory jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate over appeals involving the issue or question of pure declaration of ownership or title to land simpliciter, since it is not an issue or question relating to Islamic personal law as provided for in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court observed further that Respondent’s claim before the trial court did not involve the issue of validity of the gift of the house to her husband, since it was not disputed the issue is not relevant in the determination of the nature of the claim and whether the Sharia Court of Appeal has the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the appeal against the decision of the trial court. Since the validity of the gift was not challenged before the trial court, it therefore did not constitute the primary issue for determining jurisdiction. Also, the Appellant’s counter-claim at the trial court, was totally based on inheritance of the house in accordance with Islamic law principles. Both claims therefore, involved questions of Islamic personal law. The question or issue of the validity of a gift only becomes relevant and material when and where it is specifically challenged and in dispute between parties.
The appeal against the decision of the trial court on the basis of the issue of inheritance and succession on which the Appellant based his Counter-claim for the house in dispute, was a valid and competent appeal involving questions of Islamic Personal Law over which the Sharia Court of Appeal possesses the requisite constitutional jurisdiction to adjudicate by dint of the provisions of Section 277(2) (c) of the Constitution.
Having confirmed that the subject-matter is that of gift, the Sharia Court of Appeal is vested with jurisdiction to entertain such matters. Section 277(1) of the 1999 Constitution vests the Sharia Court of Appeal with jurisdiction to exercise appellate and supervisory jurisdiction in civil proceedings involving questions of Islamic Law, which the court is competent to decide in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of that section.
The Supreme Court thereby affirmed the concurrent decisions of the Sharia Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal.
Appeal Dismissed.
Representation
Yakubu S. Bawa for the Appellant.
Ahmed Mohammed Jega for the Respondent.
Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)
