In a decision rendered on Friday, June 7, 2024, the Supreme Court of Nigeria addressed the jurisdictional boundaries of Sharia Courts under Section 277 of the Nigerian Constitution. The case, identified as SC. 406/2017, was a culmination of disputes over inheritance and land ownership in Kano State.
Case Background
The appellants, led by Fauziya Ali, contested a claim initiated by Mandu Bashir Maiduguri, who sought to recover a portion of his father’s estate allegedly withheld by the first appellant. The estate in question, located at 50 Ibrahim Taiwo Road, Kano, had been inherited by Bashir Ali Bin Alua, who passed away in 1972. The dispute centered on whether a portion of the property had been gifted to the first appellant or whether it rightfully belonged to the respondent as an heir.
READ MORE: Lagos Deputy Governor to Grace 85th Anniversary Lecture of Crescent Bearers Muslim Group
At the trial stage, the Waje No.1 Sharia Court ruled that the first appellant needed to provide evidence of the alleged gift. Subsequent appeals traversed multiple judicial levels, culminating in a Supreme Court review.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered two primary issues:
- Whether the Sharia Courts had jurisdiction to hear the case under Section 277 of the Constitution.
- Whether the order to return the disputed portion of the property was sufficiently specific and unambiguous.
Legal Arguments and Court’s Rationale
On Jurisdiction
The appellants argued that the case involved land ownership in an urban area, which is exclusively under the jurisdiction of High Courts as per the Land Use Act. They maintained that the trial Sharia Court lacked authority to adjudicate the matter, as it concerned title disputes.
The respondent countered by asserting that the claim was rooted in Islamic personal law, specifically inheritance and succession. Citing Section 277 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the respondent argued that such cases fall squarely within the jurisdiction of Sharia Courts.
The Supreme Court affirmed the respondent’s position. The Court noted that Section 277 empowers Sharia Courts to adjudicate matters of Islamic personal law, including inheritance disputes. The claim pertained to a share of an estate being withheld, falling under the ambit of “a dispute over any heritable estate which any person withholds away from the heirs”, as outlined in the Constitution.
On the Specificity of the Order
The appellants also challenged the clarity of the lower court’s order, arguing that it failed to specify the exact portion of the property to be returned. This, they claimed, rendered the judgement ambiguous and unenforceable.
The Supreme Court disagreed. It noted that during the trial, the court visited the disputed property and obtained unanimous confirmation from both parties regarding its location and description. Additionally, the Court emphasized that under Islamic law, admissions (Iqrar) made by parties during proceedings serve as binding evidence.
The Court concluded that the order to return the respondent’s share of the property was sufficiently specific, as the facts and location of the estate were clearly established during the trial.
Judgement and Implications
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division, and affirming the judgement of the Sharia Court of Appeal, Kano State. The ruling reinforces the jurisdictional scope of Sharia Courts under Section 277 of the Constitution, particularly in matters of inheritance governed by Islamic personal law.
This landmark decision highlights the interplay between statutory laws like the Land Use Act and constitutional provisions for Islamic law, ensuring clarity on the boundaries of judicial authority.
Case Representation
- For the Appellants: K. Maude
- For the Respondent: Prof. Mamman Lawan, SAN, with W.Y. Mamman and Hajara Halilu
Reported by: Optimum Publishers Limited (Nigerian Monthly Law Reports – NMLR)
This case underscores the delicate balance between traditional legal frameworks and constitutional guarantees, offering a significant precedent for similar disputes in Nigeria.