Unlocking Legal Mysteries: Can Sharia Courts Rule on Estate Inheritance Involving Limited Liability Companies?

CASE TITLE: MAMUDA & ANOR v. UPPER SHARIA COURT KASUWA & ANOR (2023) LPELR-61562(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 11TH DECEMBER, 2023

JUSTICES: ITA GEORGE MBABA, JCA
BOLOUKUROMO MOSES UGO, JCA
USMAN ALHAJI MUSALE, JCA

DIVISION: KANO

PRACTICE AREA: JURISDICTION

FACTS:
This appeal emanated from the decision of the Kano State High Court in Suit No. K/M710/2020, delivered on January 14, 2021, by Hon. Justice Ibrahim Musa Karaye.

At the trial Court, the Appellants sought an order of certiorari through judicial review to quash the ruling of the Upper Sharia Court, Kasuwa, citing lack of jurisdiction. The trial Court, after considering the application, exhibits, and arguments, held that the Sharia Court had the jurisdiction to handle inheritance matters related to Islamic personal law, including a limited liability company.

The trial Court emphasized that, according to Section 277(2) (a) (b) (c) and (d) of the 1999 Constitution, claims involving the inheritance of property subject to Islamic personal law fall within the jurisdiction of the Sharia Court, not the High Court. The trial Court ruled in favor of the Respondent, stating that the Upper Sharia Court, Kasuwa, had the power and jurisdiction to distribute the estate of the deceased Muslim, including the company, Asuani Shoe Industries Ltd. The Court dismissed the Applicants’ (Appellants) request for Judicial Review to quash the ruling of the Upper Sharia Court, Kasuwa.

Dissatisfied, the Appellants appealed.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court determined the appeal on the following issues, viz:

1. Whether the lower Court has the requisite power and jurisdiction to determine questions regarding title to a landed property within an urban area?
2. Whether the Upper Sharia Court, Kasuwa, has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the distribution of a company and its properties, when the ownership of the company is an issue?
3. Whether the lower Court was right by abandoning and not making any pronouncement on the issues raised by the appellants as applicants before it?

COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS:
Appellant’s Counsel addressed the first issue, negating the trial court’s decision. He referred to Section 39(1)(a) of the Land Use Act, emphasizing the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court over matters of statutory right of occupancy. The appellant had filed a suit seeking declaratory relief in the High Court of Kano State regarding Ausani Shoes Industries Ltd., and a restraining order was obtained. Counsel argued that the subject matter fell within the High Court’s jurisdiction, as evidenced by the restraining order and the statutory allocation of land in an urban area. Cases were cited to support the contention that the trial Court should have excluded itself from the case due to a lack of jurisdiction.

On the second issue concerning the Upper Sharia Court’s jurisdiction over the distribution of a company’s properties, counsel answered negatively. Referring to the Kano State Sharia Law 2000, he highlighted the court’s jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters involving Muslims, with restrictions on non-Muslim participation. Counsel argued that the Upper Sharia Court lacked jurisdiction over a company, which is an artificial legal entity, citing several cases to support this claim. He asserted that the Federal High Court holds exclusive jurisdiction over company-related matters.

The Respondent’s Counsel, addressing issue one, supported the trial Court’s decision, stating that the Upper Sharia Court’s jurisdiction did not extend to disputes over land titles or companies. The case before the Court pertained to inheritance and succession. He cited the claims made by the respondent and the appellants’ acknowledgment of the company’s inclusion in their late father’s estate. Regarding the second issue, he reiterated that the claim before the Upper Sharia Court concerned estate distribution, not company ownership, and argued that the court’s jurisdiction was appropriate for such matters. He referred to constitutional provisions and legal precedents to bolster his argument.

DECISION/HELD:
In the final analysis, the Court allowed the appeal.

RATIO:
JURISDICTION – JURISDICTION OF THE SHARIA COURT OF APPEAL: Whether the Sharia Court of Appeal and Upper Sharia Court have jurisdiction over matters of inheritance of estate where a limited liability company is involved

“The learned trial Court (lower Court) was wrong, in my view, to classify a limited liability company and its properties (Ausani Shoe Industries Ltd.) into the estate of the late Alh. Mahmuda Marwara. I had earlier stated the legal authorities that show that a limited liability company takes a different legal personality, from the persons that formed it. The lower Court appeared to have lost sight of that principle of law and so reached a perverse conclusion/decision and abdicated its supervisory role over inferior Courts for judicial review of their decisions.

There is no dispute that by Section 277(2)(a)(b)(c) and (d) of the 1999 Constitution of FRN (as amended), the Sharia Court of Appeal (and by inference the Upper Sharia Court) has the competence to adjudicate on matters of Islamic Personal Law regarding marriage and inheritance/succession (among other things), where the parties are Muslims and/or submit to principles of Islamic Personal Law. That, as earlier stated, cannot, in my opinion, apply to a limited liability company, formed under the Companies and Allied Matters Act, which has its set rules and principles governing the formation, operation, management, shareholding and interests, and winding up/dissolution of companies.

The 1st Respondent, therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain the 2nd Respondent’s Suit, with the inclusion of Ausani Shoe Industries Ltd, as part of the Estate of late Alh. Mahmuda Marwara for distribution to his heirs (parties in the case). To that extent, the Lower Court (High Court) was wrong to refuse the Application of the Appellants to quash the decision of the Upper Sharia Court. The application was properly located, in my opinion, and should have been granted.” Per MBABA, J.C.A.

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol