Introduction
On 19.07.2024, the Supreme Court of Nigeria (SC) delivered its judgment in an appeal filed by Bawa Dada, Ahmadu Dada and Umaru Dada (the Appellants) which arose from a land dispute. In a unanimous decision led by Hon. Justice Idris JSC, the apex Court struck out the appeal for being incompetent due to an incomplete record of appeal. Notably, the Court raised the issue suo motu, emphasizing that a complete record is a jurisdictional prerequisite for effective appellate adjudication.
Factual Matrix
The matter originated at the Upper Sharia Court, Paiko, where the Appellants (as Plaintiffs) sought a declaration of title to a piece of farmland located along Yandayo Road near Yandayi Village in Paiko District, Niger State. The Respondents denied the claim and counterclaimed ownership of the same land.
At trial, the Appellants led evidence through four witnesses asserting title by inheritance. The Respondents also called three witnesses in defence of their own claim to the land. The Upper Sharia Court dismissed the Appellants’ claim and awarded title to the Respondents.
Dissatisfied, the Appellants appealed to the High Court, which overturned the decision of the Sharia Court and declared the Appellants as rightful owners of the land. The Respondents then appealed to the Court of Appeal, which reversed the High Court’s decision and reinstated the judgment of the Upper Sharia Court in favour of the Respondents.
Still aggrieved, the Appellants lodged a final appeal to the Supreme Court.
Issues for Determination
Three issues were formulated by the Appellants for the Supreme Court’s consideration:
- Whether, considering Sections 10 and 11(a) of the Niger State Administration of Shari’ah Law, 2001, the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the procedure of Al-Izar applies only where counsel do not appear and no final address is given.
- Whether the testimony of DW1, a beneficiary of the trial court’s judgment, was admissible under Sharia law.
- Whether the trial court should have conducted a trial-within-trial before relying on the testimony of DW3, whose competence to testify had been challenged.
The Judgment of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not proceed to determine the substantive issues raised in the appeal. Rather, it struck out the appeal on procedural grounds. Justice Idris JSC (delivering the lead judgment) held that the appeal was incompetent due to an incomplete record of appeal, which failed to include all the concurring judgments from the Court of Appeal.
The Court emphasized that appellate adjudication is strictly based on the record transmitted from the lower courts. Without a complete record, particularly in appeals against the “whole decision” of the lower court, as it was in this instant case, the Supreme Court lacks the jurisdiction to proceed.
The Court noted that the lead judgment of the Court of Appeal was in the record, but the required concurring opinions of the other Justices (as required under Section 294(2) of the 1999 Constitution as amended) were absent.
Since those opinions form part of the final decision of the Court of Appeal, their omission rendered the record and the appeal incomplete. Therefore, to the extent that the whole decision complained about is not before the court, the Supreme Court found that it will not be in a position to reach a just resolution of the issues submitted before it.
Justice Idris JSC made clear that the Court could not waive such a fundamental procedural defect. He further held that adjudicating the appeal without the complete decision would lead to a miscarriage of justice. The lead judgment was affirmed by the other Justices. Accordingly, the Supreme Court struck out the appeal.
Commentary on the Decision
This judgment is significant for its emphatic reaffirmation of procedural integrity within appellate practice. The Supreme Court’s suo motu refusal to adjudicate the appeal in the absence of a complete transmitted record underscores and reinforces the settled principle that the valid exercise of appellate jurisdiction is strictly contingent upon the completeness of the record.
Of particular significance is the fact that this appeal, having languished on the docket for over fifteen years, was ultimately struck out solely on this procedural ground.
The decision serves as a salutary reminder and caution to legal practitioners, particularly those representing appellants, of the paramount importance of exercising utmost diligence in compiling and meticulously verifying the completeness of the record of appeal.
Any procedural lapse at this stage, however seemingly minor, carries the profound consequence of rendering years of protracted litigation futile, thereby potentially depriving a party of the opportunity to obtain substantive justice on the merits.