Assessing Compliance of Yobe State Sharia Court of Appeal with Maliki Rules in Determining the Quantum of Khul’

Abstract

This article examines the extent to which the Yobe State Sharia Court of Appeal complies with Maliki jurisprudential principles in determining the quantum of compensation payable in khul proceedings. Although khulʿ is well established under Islamic family law, limited scholarly attention has been paid to how Nigerian Sharia appellate courts apply classical Maliki rules in determining the amount of compensation payable upon dissolution. Adopting a doctrinal research methodology, the study analyses relevant constitutional provisions, classical Maliki legal authorities, statutory materials, and selected appellate decisions of the Yobe State Sharia Court of Appeal delivered between 2015 and 2018. The paper develops a two-axis compliance framework comprising outcome compliance, which assesses whether the compensation awarded falls within the range recognised by Maliki jurisprudence, and procedural compliance, which evaluates whether negotiation and hakamayn-led reconciliation were meaningfully facilitated before judicial determination of the quantum. The findings indicate that while the court's substantive decisions generally conform to the flexibility permitted under the Maliki School regarding the amount of compensation, procedural compliance is less consistent because many decisions do not clearly demonstrate structured negotiation or arbitration before judicial intervention. The article argues that greater procedural transparency would enhance both doctrinal fidelity and public confidence in the administration of Islamic family law. It recommends institutionalising a negotiation-first approach, formalising hakamayn referral where agreement cannot be reached, and providing fuller judicial reasoning when determining compensation.