Preface

23
1. During the pendency of the instant case and before the judgment the Cadi had
allowed the respondent alone to enter into his chambers.
2. The Cadi ordered for the detention of the appellant when he was making his
statement of claim.
3. The distribution of the estate (house) was completed without the appellant or
witnesses or his uncle or the Imam of the area in attendance.
4. The Cadi did not advert his mind to the allegation that the appellant has removed
some properties from the house. Neither did the Cadi call for evidence in proof of
the allegation.
5. The valuation of the house (estate) was done by an unknown estate valuer.
6. Initially the respondent did not support the idea of distributing the estate but he
was of the view of leaving the whole properties for the children.
The case was slated for hearing before the Panel on 07/06/2007. On that day
both the appellant and respondent were before the court in person. The appellant
made the submissions that the respondent presented a requested for her own share
and that of her small daughter in the house before the lower court. But appellant
objected to that on the ground that the daughter was too small and he doesn’t want
part with her, he wants her share to be under his care up to the time she will be of
age. He then appealed to the Panel to confer on him the right of custody of his
sister (Hauwa Sabily) and to look after her share. At this juncture the respondent
had made the same appeal she made before the lower court that she wants her own
share of 1/8 and that of her daughter be given to her. And with regard to the
appellant appeal for the custody of Hauwa Sabily she objected to that on the
ground that he was yet to marry. She further said that the girl is her own daughter