site logo

MALLO V. MALLAM (2006)

case summary

Court of Appeal (Jos Division)

Before Their Lordships:

  • Aloma M. Mukhtar JCA
  • Amiru Sanusi JCA
  • Ifeyinwa Cecilia Nzeako JCA

Parties:

Appellants:

  • Josiah Mallo
  • Bitrus Takwen
  • Emmanuel Mallo
  • Umaru Dallek
  • David Machief Kamo Mallashi

Respondents:

  • Kamo Mallam
  • Bokkos Local Government
  • Bokkos Local Government Traditional Council
Suit number: CA/J/114/97

Background

This appeal arises from a decision of a lower court where the appellants sought to establish the Daress clan as an independent ward with voting rights in the selection of the village head of Mbar.

Facts

The appellants, representing the Daress clan, contended that they were historically recognized alongside the Palmang clan in the selection of Galadima of Mbar until a 1973 resolution restricted this role to the Palmang clan. The appellants argued that an independent chieftaincy should be established for them, following their exclusion from a gazette that outlined ward heads in the village.

Issues

The key issues presented before the Court of Appeal included:

  1. Whether the lower court correctly held that the appellants failed to prove a custom enabling Daress ward to participate in the selection of the village head.
  2. Whether the appellants proved their claims based on the preponderance of evidence.
  3. Whether the absence of a gazette recognizing the appellants' ward justified denying them participation in the selection process.

Court Findings

The Court of Appeal, presided over by Justice Aloma M. Mukhtar, dismissed the appeal, relying on several key points:

  1. The standard of proof in civil cases is based on the preponderance of evidence, and the appellants were unable to demonstrate a customary right to participate in the selection of the village head.
  2. The trial court's finding that the Daress ward held a status similar to other wards only for administrative convenience was upheld, as the appellants did not provide evidence establishing a distinct custom.
  3. The court clarified that minor errors in judgment do not necessarily result in a reversal, emphasizing the absence of critical evidence like a gazette to support the appellants' claims.

Ratio Decidendi

The court reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the party making assertions, and the failure to present a gazette or sufficient evidence rendered the appellants' claims unsubstantiated. It was highlighted that the chieftaincy matters are under the purview of state legislatures.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal concluded that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it outright, affirming the lower court’s decision while imposing costs against the appellants.

Significance

This case is significant in reinforcing the principles of burden of proof in civil litigation, emphasizing the importance of presenting adequate evidence for claims related to customary rights and recognition of wards within traditional governance structures.