CASE TITLE: MOHAMMED & ORS v. MOHAMMED & ANOR (2024) LPELR-62831(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 23RD AUGUST, 2024
JUSTICES: MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, JCA
ABUBAKAR MUAZU LAMIDO, JCA
MOHAMMED AHMED RAMAT, JCA
DIVISION: KANO
PRACTICE AREA: ISLAMIC LAW AND PROCEDURE
FACTS:
This appeal challenges the judgment of the Sharia Court of Appeal of Kwara State, which overturned an earlier ruling by the Upper Area Court I, Ilorin. The appellants, as plaintiffs, had initiated a suit seeking the distribution of the estate of the late Major Mohammed Arogun Adeniyi in accordance with Islamic law, including a claim for 23.5 million naira and the return of the deceased’s personal belongings.
The 2nd respondent, the deceased’s wife, contested the jurisdiction of the Upper Area Court, arguing that the deceased was a Christian married under the Marriage Act and his estate should be inherited according to the Administration of Estates Law of Kwara State, excluding the appellants. The Upper Area Court dismissed this objection, assuming jurisdiction to apply Islamic law.
However, the Sharia Court of Appeal reversed this decision, ruling that Islamic law did not apply, as the deceased was not Muslim. Dissatisfied with this ruling, the appellants filed the present appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court considered:
1. Whether the Court below was right in holding that the Administration of Estate Law of Kwara State was the applicable law to govern the administration of estates of the late Major Mohammed Adeneyi and not Islamic Law.
2. Whether the learned Kadis of the Court below were not in error when they held that the Appellants’ suit was an abuse of Court process having regard to the suit No. KWS/2/2020 before High Court of Kwara State.
COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS:
The appellants’ counsel argued that the trial Court had jurisdiction to entertain their claims under Islamic law, as the appellants sought the surrender of the deceased’s entitlements and personal belongings for distribution according to Islamic law. Citing Section 17 of the Area Court Law Cap A9 Laws of Kwara State, 2006, counsel maintained that the Upper Area Court had unlimited jurisdiction in succession matters involving Islamic law, regardless of the estate’s value.
Counsel disagreed with the trial court’s ruling that the deceased’s marriage under the Marriage Act meant the Administration of Estates Law of Kwara State applied rather than Islamic law. He contended that the deceased, being Muslim, was bound by Sharia law and could not opt for another legal framework for estate distribution, citing the Quran and Islamic legal principles. He also argued that denying the application of Islamic law infringed upon the appellants’ constitutional right to religious freedom, relying on Section 38 of the 1999 Constitution.
Furthermore, counsel submitted that the trial Court’s interpretation of the Marriage Act, which deemed the deceased’s marriage monogamous and not subject to polygamy, was incorrect. He contended that Section 35 of the Marriage Act only addresses marriages under customary law, not Islamic law, and cited cases to support this distinction.
Finally, the appellants’ counsel emphasized that Islamic law is distinct from customary law, as it is a universal system not limited to any particular tribe, quoting the Supreme Court’s decision in Alkamawa v. Bello & Anor.
The respondents neither appeared nor filed any process.
DECISION/HELD:
The appeal was allowed.
RATIO:
ISLAMIC LAW AND PROCEDURE: ISLAMIC LAW MARRIAGE: Whether marriage under the Marriage Act or marriage to a Christian by a Muslim man implies a renunciation of his Islamic faith or prevents him from marrying other legally permissible wives, “it is also pertinent to note that there is no argument as to the fact that the deceased, who lived and died as a Muslim, was free to marry a Christian woman. The fact that he married the 2nd Respondent under the Marriage Act does not mean that he renounced his Islamic faith. Furthermore, the deceased, being a Muslim, was also entitled to marry up to a maximum of four wives at a given time. Thus, his subsequent marriages under Islamic Law, which he had chosen, were therefore in consonance with his constitutionally guaranteed right under Section 38 (1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).” Per SHUAIBU, J.C.A.
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
