site logo

ADAGUN V. SATUMARI (2024)

Case Digest

Supreme Court of Nigeria

Coram

  • Hon. Justice Kudirat M. Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun
  • Hon. Justice Uwani Musa Abba-Aji
  • Hon. Justice Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju
  • Hon. Justice Tijjani Abubakar
  • Hon. Justice Emmanuel Akomaye Agim

Parties:

Appellants:

  • Mr. Abdul Rahmon Adisa Adagun
  • Mrs. Amudalat Olarenwaju Oyelola
  • Mr. Maroof Morakinyo Adagun
  • Abdul Hafeez Oluwaseyi Adagun

Respondents:

  • Abdulrahman Satumari
  • The Permanent Secretary, Bureau of Lands and Survey (Borno State)
  • Hon. Attorney General (Borno State)
  • Borno State Government
Suit number: SC. 438/2015

Background

This case concerns the legal dispute regarding the ownership of land in Maiduguri, Nigeria. The appellant, late Hon. Mr. Justice Sikiru Olatunde Adagun, held a Certificate of Occupancy for a plot of land, which he had been granted with various covenants to pay rent and develop the land within specified time frames. Due to his failure to adhere to these conditions and subsequent non-payment of rent from 2000 onwards, the Borno State government revoked his Certificate and reallocated the land to the first respondent, Abdulrahman Satumari, who developed the land for tourism-related purposes. After the revocation, the appellant sought declaratory and injunctive reliefs in court.

Issues

The primary issues for determination were:

  1. Whether the appeal filed by the appellant was competent, considering it was submitted without the required court leave.
  2. Whether the lower courts erred in their assessments of the evidence presented regarding the ownership claims of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court ruled that it is mandatory under section 233(2) and (3) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria for an appellant to obtain leave to appeal when the grounds are of mixed law and fact. Consequently, because the appellant failed to secure the necessary leave before filing the appeal based on grounds of mixed law and fact, the appeal was deemed incompetent.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court determined that:

  1. The grounds of appeal presented by the appellant involved mixed questions of law and fact.
  2. Since there was no prior leave sought or granted for these grounds, it stripped the court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal, rendering it incompetent.
  3. The preliminary objections raised by the respondents were upheld, prompting the court to strike out the appeal.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for being incompetent, adhering strictly to procedural requirements for lodging appeals.

Significance

This case underscores critical elements in property law, particularly the importance of complying with procedural mandates when conducting legal appeals. It reaffirms the necessity for obtaining leave of court to appeal on grounds that blend both law and fact, serving as caution for future litigants regarding adherence to jurisdictional prerequisites.