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). The appeal 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 began at the Upper Sharia Court, Paiko. There, the Appellants (as Plaintiffs) sought a declaration of title to farmland 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. It overturned the Sharia Court’s decision and declared the Appellants the rightful owners. The Respondents then appealed to the Court of Appeal. That court reversed the High Court and restored the Upper Sharia Court’s judgment in favour of the Respondents.
Still aggrieved, the Appellants lodged a final appeal to the Supreme Court.
Issues for determination
The Appellants framed three issues for the Supreme Court:
- Whether the Court of Appeal was right, under Sections 10 and 11(a) of the Niger State Administration of Shari’ah Law, 2001, to hold that Al-Izar applies only where counsel do not appear and give no final address.
- Whether the testimony of DW1, a beneficiary of the trial court’s judgment, was admissible under Sharia law.
- Whether the trial court should have held a trial-within-trial before relying on DW3, whose competence to testify was in dispute.
Supreme Court judgment on the incomplete record of appeal
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 gave the lead judgment. He held the appeal incompetent because the record of appeal was incomplete. In particular, it left out some concurring judgments from the Court of Appeal.
The Court stressed that an appeal court decides only on the record sent up from the lower courts. This appeal challenged the “whole decision” of the lower court. Without a complete record in such a case, the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to proceed.
The Court noted that the record held the Court of Appeal’s lead judgment. However, it lacked the concurring opinions of the other Justices, which Section 294(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) requires.
Those opinions form part of the Court of Appeal’s final decision. So their absence left the record and the appeal incomplete. Because the whole decision was not before it, the Supreme Court found it could not justly resolve the issues.
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 other Justices agreed with the lead judgment. 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 refused, suo motu, to hear the appeal without a complete record. In doing so, it reinforced a settled principle: appellate jurisdiction depends on a complete 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 is a clear warning to legal practitioners, especially those acting for appellants. They must take great care to compile the record of appeal and check that it is complete.
Any lapse at this stage, however minor it seems, can make years of litigation futile. As a result, a party may lose the chance of justice on the merits.