STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

MORTGAGEE OR RECEIVER EXERCISING A POWER OF SALE ONLY HAS A DUTY TO ACT BONA FIDE

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

There is an abundance of authorities describing the obligations of a mortgagee and by extension, a receiver, exercising a power of sale. Thus, whether the mortgagee or receiver owes a duty of care in the conduct of the sale, the law seems sufficiently well settled that the mortgagee or receiver engaged in selling the mortgaged property has a duty to act bona fide. In EKA – ETEH V. NIGERIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY LTD & ANOR (1973) NSCC 373, 380, at 381, the Supreme Court held that – “The only obligation incumbent on a mortgagee selling under and in pursuance of a power of sale in the mortgage deed is that he should act in good faith.”

— M.L. Shuaibu, JCA. FBN v Benlion (2021) – CA/C/31/2016

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

mortgage

RIGHT TO REDEMPTION IN MORTGAGE CANNOT BE BARRED

It is a settled rule of equity that any agreement which directly bars the mortgagor’s right to redemption is ineffectual. – Iguh JSC. Ejikeme v. Okonkwo (1994)

Was this dictum helpful?

DISPUTE AS TO AMOUNT OWNED IS NOT VALID GRANT FOR MORTGAGEE NOT TO SELL

A dispute as to volume of indebtedness is not a valid ground known to law such as can be relied upon to prohibit a mortgagee from exercising his right of sale. In other words, the mortgagee will not be restrained from exercising his power of sale because the amount due is in dispute. He will be restrained, however, if the mortgagor pays the amount claimed into court, that is the amount which the mortgagee swears to be due to him, unless on the terms of the mortgage the claim is exclusive. [Sabbagh v. Batik of West Africa (1962) 2 All NLR 225]

– L.A. Ayanlere v. Federal Mortgage Bank of Nig. Ltd. (1998) – CA/K/186/96

Was this dictum helpful?

A MORTGAGEE MAY CHOOSE EITHER TO: ENFORCE AGAINST THE PROPERTY OR SUE FOR PAYMENT

There is no doubt, and as earlier stated, the rights of a Mortgagee as the Appellant herein against the Mortgagor, the 3rd Respondents, is cumulative in the sense that it may decide either way, whether to enforce the security against the property or sue upon the personal covenant to the Mortgagor, for payment or go for both. Yet, it must be clearly stated in the pleadings which form the creditor has chosen, to recover its money. See Megany’s Manual of the Law of Real Property, 67th Edition page 484.

— O. Ariwoola, JSC. African Intl. Bank Ltd. v Integrated Dimensional System (2012) – SC.278/2002

Was this dictum helpful?

How Equitable Mortgage is created?

Now, equitable mortgages are created inter alia, (1) by mere deposit of title deeds with a clear intention that the deed should be taken or retained as security for the loan; (2) by an agreement to create a legal mortgage and (3) by mere equitable Charge of the mortgagor’s property. In passing we think that it should be pointed out that the last of the three classes of equitable mortgage i.e. that which is created merely by a charge on the property intended as security for the loan differs considerably from the first two in respect of the remedies it confers; and the property so charged is appropriated only to the discharge of a debt or some other burden in respect of which the property stands charged.

– Idigbe JSC. Ogundiani v. Araba (1978)

Was this dictum helpful?

BAD FAITH ON THE PURCHASER OF MORTGAGE PROPERTY

The law of sale by auction or auction sale protects the purchaser and that is the basis of the principle of law that a mortgagor’s right essentially is in damages. The law has an important qualification and it is that the purchaser must have bought the mortgaged property in good faith, that is bona fide and not in bad faith, that is mala fide. The sympathies of the law on the purchaser will vanish the moment the court comes to the conclusion that the purchaser bought the property in bad faith. Bad faith on the part of the purchaser is a matter of fact to be deduced from the totality of the purchasing or buying conduct of the purchaser. Bad faith taints or better still, destroys a mortgage sale and therefore the property in the sale.

– Niki Tobi JSC. Okonkwo v. Cooperative Bank (2003)

Was this dictum helpful?

READY BUILT HOUSES TO BE PAID FOR INSTALLMENTALLY ARE MORTGAGES

I will have to state clearly that the statutory corporations, with authority to build houses and sell on terms to people who otherwise would be unable to build on their own, are in someway mortgages to the buyers. But instead of outright loan to the buyer they provide ready built houses to be paid for on certain terms. The terms range according to the laid down policy of each corporation. Some require a certain percentage of the full price to be paid as first deposit and the remainder to be paid in certain instalments. They are in some cases flexible as to time but in most cases spell out when and how to liquidate the full price. All these terms are without prejudice to mortgagor’s right to pay the full price outright; or if he defaults for just a few days or even weeks in a reasonable way he still retains his equity of redemption, i.e. even if the contractual date had passed. Howard V Harris (1683) 1 Vern 190; Spurgeon V Collier (1578) 1 Eden 55; Jennings V Ward (1705) 5 Vern 520. What found its way into our statutes is no more than the historical Common Law Practice of protecting the weak borrowing from the overbearing lender. Once the lender (mortgagee) was adequately protected to recover his money in full plus interest at reasonable time even if somewhat outside the contracted period the mortgagor’s equity of redemption should not be vitiated. What is essentially a mortgage in this case is dressed up as a conveyance with the right to withhold possession from the mortgagor until he liquidated the debt; but should he fail to liquidate by unreasonably defaulting in payment and was in arrears for long the mortgagee’s right of foreclosure should also not be vitiated.

— Belgore, JSC. A.S.H.D.C. v Emekwue (1996) – SC. 282/1989

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.