Islamic Law and Procedure (11)
HELD:
"The Appellant kept maintaining that his claim was for distribution of estate and not possession or ownership of title to land.
HELD:
"...under Islamic law, just like common law, in a claim for ownership of land, the locations and boundaries at any special features of the land must be mentioned and proved by the claimant - Mafolaku Vs Alamu (1961-89) 1 SLRN 105, Fakka Vs Mamman (1997) 4 NWLR (Pt 499) 335 and Gezoji Vs Kulere (2012) 4 NWLR (pt 1291) 458.
HELD:
"The principle of hauzi in Islamic law is where a person has been in undisturbed possession of a landed property for a period of ten (10) years or more and the true owner stands by and does nothing to claim his property, the person in possession acquires title by prescription.
HELD:
"The concept of ownership by long possession and enjoyment of land relied upon by the Appellants in their claim to the land in dispute is recognized under Islamic Law.
HELD:
"The principle of Islamic law on the competence of a party to testify in his own case was correctly stated by the Court below. It is that parties are not competent witnesses in Court in their respective cases.
HELD:
"It is correct that under Islamic law, unlike in English law, parties are not competent witnesses in their respective cases; hence their statements in Court would not be regarded as evidence and their statements are something akin or similar to the statement of claim or of defence in Court
HELD:
"It is correct that under Islamic law, the burden on a claimant to prove his case can be discharged by the claimant calling two unimpeachable male witnesses or one unimpeachable male witness and two unimpeachable female witnesses or one unimpeachable male witness coupled with the oath of the claimant or two unimpeachable female witnesses with the oath of the claimant -
HELD:
"On discharge of burden of proof under Islamic law, the general principle in civil matters with regard to both movable and immovable properties is that, the proof is taken as complete and the burden discharged in the Claimant's case upon the following:
HELD:
"it is trite that under the Sharia, the door of inheritance only opens on the fulfillment of two fundamental conditions namely, proof of death of the praepositus and the survival of an heir. Other authorities in Islamic Law, however, include a third condition to the effect that there must be an inheritable estate left behind by the praepositus." See JATAU V. MAILAFIYA (1998) LPELR-1598(SC)Per Onu, J.S.C. (P.17, Paras.A-C)
HELD:
"Under Islamic law, unlike English law, parties are not competent witnesses in their respective claims, hence their statements in court would not be regarded as evidence, but something akin to statement of claim or defence in the High Court." See JATAU V. MAILAFIYA (1998) LPELR-1598(SC) Per MOHAMMED, J.S.C. (P.12, Paras.B-C)