WHETHER MANDATORY FOR COURT TO CONSIDER ALL ISSUES BEFORE IT

The case involves an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Sokoto Division delivered on the 16th day of March, 2022, in Appeal No. CA/S/121S/2020, wherein the appeal from the Sharia Court of Appeal, Kebbi State sitting in Argungu which had itself heard an appeal from the Upper Sharia Court, Gwandu was allowed on the ground that the Sharia Court of Appeal, Kebbi State lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter. KAMBAZA V. KAMBAZA (2026) 15 NWLR (Pt. 2063) 399 (SC).

A brief of narration of what transpired in the case is that:

The respondent, who was the claimant at the Upper Sharia Court, Gwandu, filed an action against the appellant inviting the court to recover a parcel of land from the appellant, who was the defendant at the lower court, claiming he inherited the same from his father. The matter went into hearing and the lower trial court confirmed the ownership of the farmland in favour of the appellant.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the respondent appealed to the Sharia Court of Appeal, which reversed the judgment of the trial court and confirmed ownership of the farmland to the respondent based on the principles of Hauzi in accordance with Islamic law.

Still dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal on three grounds, one of which was that the Sharia Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between the parties as the issue falls outside the provision of section 277(1) and of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and so did not relate to Islamic personal law, but merely concerned the issue of title or ownership of a portion of farmland.

The Court of Appeal held that the Sharia Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine matters relating to title or ownership of land and accordingly allowed the appeal.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the Court of Appeal failed to determine all the issues raised in the appeal in that it did not consider issue two before it.

A legal question was raised on whether it is mandatory for the court to consider all issues before it. In its wise decision, the Supreme Court held that:

“Having found that the Sharia Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, proceeding to a determination of issue two was an academic exercise which would serve no utilitarian value to the parties.”

The decision highlights the fundamental principle that a court must first be satisfied that it has jurisdiction before proceeding to determine the substantive issues arising in a matter. The Supreme Court also emphasised the need to avoid deciding questions that would amount to merely academic exercises where such determination would serve no practical purpose to the parties.

The Court further held that, having found that the Sharia Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, proceeding to determine the second issue would amount to an academic exercise. The determination of an issue is academic where its resolution would have no practical effect on the rights or interests of the parties. In the circumstances of the case, the question of jurisdiction was decisive. Once the Court found that the lower court lacked jurisdiction, any pronouncement on the second issue would serve no useful purpose and would not alter the outcome of the appeal. The Court therefore declined to determine the issue, thereby avoiding a purely academic pronouncement.

The Supreme Court's decision not to determine Issue Two demonstrates judicial restraint. Once the Court had established that the Sharia Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction, determining the remaining issue would have had no practical consequence for the parties. The Court therefore avoided making a pronouncement on a question that could not affect the outcome of the appeal. This approach is consistent with the judicial policy of deciding only questions that are necessary for the effective resolution of a dispute.

JUSTICE HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C, stated that:

“The court does not embark on academic exercise. The court’s time is too valuable to be expended on matters of an academic nature. In this case, the Supreme Court, having found that the Sharia Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, did not proceed to determine issue two in the appeal, as doing so would be tantamount to an academic exercise which will serve no utilitarian value to the parties."

The supreme court in its judgement unanimously dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. Consequently, the judgment of the lower court delivered on 16/3/2022 is affirmed and the matter be remitted to the High Court of Kebbi State for trial.

It further held that, Lawyers looking to shore up the number of their appearances before the Supreme Court for the purpose of their application for the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, and who, seeing that hearing of Sharia appeals have better traction in this court, file appeals on any flimsy ground, whether meaningful or not, or reasonable or unreasonable. It is time the relevant authorities, the National Judicial Council, the Nigerian Bar Association and this court, point out and curb these tendencies to save this court the agony of hearing unproductive appeals which it resolves by merely repeating what it has been saying since 1995 on the subject. 

In conclusion, the case underscores the fundamental importance of jurisdiction in the administration of justice. The Supreme Court's decision demonstrates that where a court lacks jurisdiction, it cannot validly proceed to determine the substantive issues arising from the appeal. The Court's refusal to determine an issue that had become academic further reflects the principle of judicial restraint and the need for courts to make only pronouncements that have practical utility to the parties.

The decision also serves as a reminder to counsel that appellate litigation should be founded on genuine and sustainable legal grounds rather than the pursuit of unnecessary appeals. Ultimately, the case reinforces the importance of jurisdiction, judicial economy and the avoidance of academic questions in the effective administration of justice.

About the Author:

Nana Hauwa’u Abdulazeez is a Senior Advocate of Bayero University, Kano (SABUK), and a Member of the Research and Litigation Directorate, Solace Chambers, Bayero University, Kano. She can be reached via +2347039176661 or email - abdulazeeznanahauwau3@gmail.com.