Background
This case involves an appeal against the judgment of the Kwara State High Court regarding the validity of mortgage agreements and a public auction sale.
Facts
The 1st respondent, Julius Babatunde, borrowed money from the 2nd respondent, Bank of the North Ltd., secured by two legal mortgages. After defaulting on repayments, Bank of the North auctioned the mortgaged property to the appellant, Alhaja Bamidele Adepate. Contesting the sale, Babatunde claimed the auction was invalid due to lack of proper notices and argued the mortgage deeds were void as they lacked necessary approvals.
Issues
Several legal issues arose:
- Whether the auction sale was valid.
- Whether the mortgage deeds executed by the 1st respondent were valid.
- Whether Babatunde had purchased land in addition to the mortgaged property.
- If the mortgagee was liable for trespass during the auction process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court expressed that:
- Unargued issues on appeal are abandoned.
- The burden of proof lies with the party making allegations in court.
- The maxim quic quid plantatur solo solo cedit applies, meaning any improvements made on mortgaged property form part of that property.
Court Findings
The court concluded that:
- The auction was deemed valid as proper notices had been waived by agreement between the parties.
- The mortgage deeds were valid under the prevailing land law prior to the 1978 Land Use Act since their execution preceded the Act.
- Proof of additional land purchase was not substantiated due to lack of evidence.
- The mortgagee cannot be liable for trespass while executing their statutory right of sale when debts are unpaid.
Conclusion
The judgment of the lower court was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The court emphasized the importance of following statutory procedures and the implications of agreements made between parties.
Significance
This case illustrates critical aspects of mortgage law in Nigeria, particularly the interplay between statutory requirements and the agreement between contracting parties. It reinforces that issues not argued on appeal may be overlooked and emphasizes the principle that defendants must produce evidence to support their claims. It also illustrates how improvements on mortgaged property are legally viewed as part of that property, adhering to established legal maxim.