The Court docket of Appeal sitting in Lagos has put aside a 2014 judgment of the Federal Excessive Court docket, which upheld Guaranty Trust {Bank} Plc’s N970 million excellent debt claims towards RCN Networks Ltd and Agboola Abiola, who is alleged to be one of many sons of the late MKO Abiola.
Appeal Court docket decide, Justice Paul Bassi, put aside the trial courtroom judgment which involved a purported contractual settlement executed between the events through the Deed of Tripartite Authorized Mortgage dated fifteenth August 2012, involving the property of Abiola.
A Deed of Tripartite Authorized Mortgage is a three-party authorized settlement involving a borrower, a {bank}, and a 3rd occasion.
The association supplies safety for a mortgage by way of a mortgage on a property or asset, particularly when the particular person in want of the mortgage lacks enough collateral.
On the Federal Excessive Court docket, GTB accused the respondents of defaulting on the settlement, leading to excellent liabilities.
“A declaration that upon the failure of the first Defendant to liquidate the excellent indebtedness of the sum N970,743,041.15 owed to the Plaintiff, the 2nd Defendant (Abiola), being its Guarantor/Surety, turns into primarily liable to pay the stated debt.
“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the first and 2nd Defendants, their privies, brokers, and servants from interfering with, obstructing, disturbing, and/or irritating Mr. Norrison I. Quakers SAN, the Receiver/Supervisor appointed by the Plaintiff, from exercising the powers vested in him or performing his duties as Receiver/Supervisor over the asset listed within the Schedule of the Deed of Tripartite Authorized Mortgage,” GTB prayed on the decrease courtroom.
On twentieth June 2014, the trial courtroom granted the reliefs in GTB’s movement of eighth April 2014 and gave remaining judgment in favor of the respondent.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellants filed their Discover of Appeal, marked CA/L/888/2014, on 18th June 2021, containing 4 grounds of attraction.
The appellants’ counsel, Charles Adeogun-Phillips, Esq., requested the Appeal Court docket to find out whether or not the trial courtroom was proper in holding that GTB was entitled to the reliefs sought in its originating summons and in granting the stated reliefs.
The appellants additional argued that there was no “legitimate Tripartite Deed of Authorized Mortgage” entitling the respondent (GTB) to nominate a receiver over the property of the 2nd appellant (Abiola).
It was argued that although the identify of Abiola was listed because the mortgagor, he by no means signed the doc because the mortgagor, thereby displaying that there isn’t any authorized mortgage in any respect between Abiola and the respondent (GTB).
The appellants contended that implementing the stated Tripartite Deed of Authorized Mortgage towards the 2nd appellant (Abiola), because the trial courtroom did when it granted GTB’s aid to nominate a receiver pursuant to the stated doc over Abiola’s property, is “a blatant violation of the doctrine of privity of contract.”
Counsel for the appellants then urged the Appeal Court docket to put aside the trial courtroom’s order which appointed Mr. Norrison I. Quakers SAN as receiver over Abiola’s property.
Counsel for GTB urged the Appeal Court docket to carry that “there was certainly a duly executed legitimate Tripartite Deed of Authorized Mortgage between the appellants and the respondent (GTB)” entitling the {bank} to nominate a receiver over Abiola’s property, which is the subject material of the Tripartite Deed of Authorized Mortgage.
“Now the decrease courtroom, for some purpose, elected to gloss over these alleged alterations and amendments, which even the police alluded to, and proceeded to limit itself to the interpretation of clause 6 of the deed.
“The place the authenticity of the deed or doc as an entire is named into query, can the courtroom interpret this doc and make a pronouncement of the rights of the events? I feel not.
“It’s incumbent on the courtroom to be happy that the deed or doc sought to be interpreted is accepted by the events as creating the rights and obligations of the events.
“Once more, a courtroom can’t proceed to make a dedication of the rights of events on a contested deed or doc, particularly one tainted with allegations of fraud or forgery. The courtroom can’t fill within the gaps in establishing authenticity or fraud by itself. That may be continuing on a defective premise,” Paul Bassi stated.
“This courtroom can’t endorse the choice of the decrease courtroom on this foundation. I due to this fact resolve this challenge in favor of the appellants,” the decide stated.
The Appeal Court docket allowed the attraction and put aside the judgment of the Federal Excessive Court docket, Lagos Division, delivered on twentieth June 2014, in swimsuit no: FHC/L/CS/876/2013.
