Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Afribank Plc V. Alade (2000) CLR 11(o) (CA)

Brief

  • Finding of fact
  • Issues for determination
  • Loan transaction
  • Written agreement
  • Foreclosure of mortgage
  • Deed of legal mortgage

Facts

In his amended statement of claim, in the court below, the plaintiff now respondent in this appeal claimed as follows:

  • 1
    "A declaration that the plot of land No. 826, which situates at No. 25 Link Road Nassarawa Quarters Gyadi Gyadi-Kano, which land is covered by a certificate of occupancy number LKN/CON/RES/81/471 on mortgage to the defendant, now appellant in this appeal is not subject to, and does not confer on the defendant/appellant any statutory right of sale. That the defendant does not possess any right on the said property.
  • 2
    A declaration that the plaintiff/respondent is still the statutory occupier of the said landed property.
  • 3
    Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant now appellant from selling the landed property, and
  • 4
    General damages of N150, 600 for loss of job, delay caused and unlawful refusal to hand over the plaintiff certificate of occupancy to the mortgage bank.”

The defendant in its statement of defence in the court below, counter-claimed against the plaintiff “for an order of court to foreclose the property of the plaintiff, and for enforcement of the provision of the legal Mortgage which the respondent executed in favour of the appellant to secure a housing loan, and for which he had failed to make payment, thereby erasing the interest of the plaintiff/respondent from the property and conferring right of power of sale to the defendant/appellant. The appellant also claimed in, the alternative the sum of N170,743.87 being money due and owed to the appellant by the respondents as at 10th December, 1991.” The counter-claim averred that the plaintiff has failed to make the said payment due despite repeated demands. The court below dismissed the counter-claim, and entered judgment for the plaintiff by a declaration that the plaintiff is the legal owner of the property covered by the certificate of occupancy No. LKN/CON.RES/81/471.

The claims of the plaintiff for general damages, and loss of job were refused. The court also adjudged premature the plaintiff’s claim for a return of the certificate of occupancy. The defendant was dissatisfied with the judgment of the court below and appealed.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether or not the appellant’s right of foreclosure in respect of the...
Read More