site logo
Skip to case content
Case Digest

ALHAJI ABUBAKAR SADIKWU V. ALHAJI ABBA DALORI (1996)

Supreme Court of Nigeria

Coram
  • Muhammadu Lawal Uwais, C.J.N.
  • Abubakar Bashir Wali, J.S.C.
  • Idris Legbo Kutigi, J.S.C.
  • Emanuel Obioma Ogwuegbu, J.S.C.
  • Uthman Mohammed, J.S.C.
Parties

Appellant:

  • Alhaji Abubakar Sadikwu

Respondent:

  • Alhaji Abba Dalori
Suit number
SC.25/1990
Delivered on

Background

Alhaji Abubakar Sadikwu claimed ownership, damages for trespass, an injunction, and alternatively possessory title over a 100 feet by 300 feet plot along Baga Road, Maiduguri. The land was within Balori Layout and had been allocated by the Maiduguri Local Authority or Maiduguri Metropolitan Council. Both Sadikwu and Alhaji Abba Dalori received certificates of customary right of occupancy from the local authority. Neither certificate had been converted into a statutory right of occupancy, and there was no evidence that the area had been designated an urban area under section 3 of the Land Use Act 1978.

The High Court entered judgment for Sadikwu, declaring him entitled to the land, awarding damages, ordering vacant possession and directing the demolition of structures. Dalori appealed. The Court of Appeal, Jos Division, held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the land was subject to a customary right of occupancy granted by a local authority, set aside the High Court judgment and declared the proceedings null and void. Sadikwu appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

The principal issue was whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that the trial High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The Supreme Court also considered the relationship between sections 39 and 41 of the Land Use Act 1978, sections 41(1) and 41(2)(a) of the Land Tenure Law of Northern Nigeria 1963, section 17(1) of the applicable High Court Law, and section 274(4)(b) of the 1979 Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 39 of the Land Use Act gives the High Court exclusive original jurisdiction over proceedings concerning land subject to a statutory right of occupancy granted or deemed to have been granted by the Governor, including declarations of title to such rights. Section 41 gives an area court, customary court or equivalent court jurisdiction over proceedings concerning a customary right of occupancy granted by a local government, including declarations of title.

The statutory and customary jurisdictional provisions are complementary rather than conflicting. The Land Tenure Law and the Land Use Act were both existing laws under section 274(4)(b) of the 1979 Constitution. Accordingly, section 41 of the Land Use Act prevailed over the Land Tenure Law only to the extent of any inconsistency; it did not automatically displace the latter.

Because the disputed land was allocated by the Maiduguri Metropolitan Council, was supported only by certificates of customary right of occupancy, and had not been designated an urban area, jurisdiction lay with an area or customary court rather than the High Court.

Court Findings

  • The absence of the words “exclusive original jurisdiction” in section 41 of the Land Use Act did not confer concurrent jurisdiction on the High Court.
  • The High Court’s general jurisdiction under the High Court Law was subject to the specific jurisdictional allocation made by the Land Use Act and the Land Tenure Law.
  • Designation of the area as an urban area under section 3 of the Land Use Act would have brought proceedings concerning the land within the High Court’s jurisdiction, but no such designation was proved.
  • The Court of Appeal reached the correct result in holding that the High Court lacked jurisdiction, although its statement that the Land Use Act automatically prevailed over the Land Tenure Law was qualified by the Supreme Court.
  • A judgment delivered without jurisdiction was a nullity, and the proper consequential order was to strike out the suit.

Conclusion

The appeal was unanimously dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s order declaring the High Court proceedings and judgment null and void for want of jurisdiction and ordered that the case be struck out. Dalori was awarded N1,000 costs in the Supreme Court and N300 costs in the High Court.

Significance

The decision clarifies the division of jurisdiction under the Land Use Act between High Courts and area or customary courts. It establishes that the nature of the right of occupancy and the identity of the granting authority, rather than the form of the claimant’s relief alone, determine jurisdiction. It also confirms that pre-existing land legislation continues as an existing law unless and only to the extent that it conflicts with the Land Use Act.

Counsel:

  • Parties absent and unrepresented