By Onyewuchi Ojinnaka (Senior Correspondent)
Justice Beatrice Oke-Lawal of a Lagos High Court sitting at Ikeja, will on December 14, 2017, deliver ruling on an action initiated by the Administrators of the Estate of late Samuel Iyiola Omotoso against Ecobank Nigeria Plc and Registrar of Titles, Lagos State, over a landed property located at No 5 Oduduwa Street, GRA Ikeja, Lagos.
The Administrators in the Suit No ID/3967GCMW/17, brought through an Originating Summons by Rotimi Aladesanmi, include Mrs. Oluwafunmilayo Nwafor, Mrs. Omowumni Olugunja, Mr. Elijah Omotoso and Mr. Emmanuel Omotoso, who are the children of the deceased.
They had contended that the propriety of a Mortgage Deed dated August 24, 2001 and registered as No 14 at page 14 in volume 2044 at the Lagos State Land Registry in respect of the property, upon which a credit facility of N155 million was extended to JNC Limited by Ecobank could not have been signed by a dead person, two years after his demise as claimed by the plaintiff.
The Administrators further claimed that there was no loan advanced to the alleged borrowing company, JNC Limited, by the 1st defendant (Ecobank) pursuant to, or consequent upon the deed of tripartite legal mortgage registered as No. 14 at page 14 in volume 2044 at the Lagos State Land Registry, with the claim that the said company was not registered.
The Administrators through Aladesanmi further told the court that the person who prepared and signed exhibit EC 17 which was attached to a counter-affidavit, meant to have been written by the mortgagor , Engr. Samuel Iyiola Omotoso, was wrongly spelt, with the error occurring on the masthead .
“In a counter affidavit dated August 7, 2017, we documented all the evidence which were shocking and disappointing.
“We revealed in the document that the 1st defendant never sent any letter to demand any sum of money to the address of the purported mortgagor on the property at 5, Oduduwa Street, GRA Ikeja, Lagos.
“That the mortgagor, Iyiola Omotosho had died before the deed by the 1st defendant and forged a letter in 2009, a year the loan was purportedly approved.
“We submit that, a fundamental ingredient of a mortgage is the time by which the loan is to be refunded or become due,” he submitted.
The Claimants, also stated that no amount was stated on the deed of tripartite legal mortgage as loan covered by the mortgage, neither is there any date for ‘repayment’ of any loan stated.
Counsel to the respondent, in his response to the claimants’ submission urge the court to strike out the claimants’ case, based on the fact that the court lacks the jurisdiction to hear the matter.
The Counsel also informed the court that the respondent in a preliminary objection dated July 27, 2017, had also proved that the case of the claimant is contentional.
“My Lord, we have taken time to go through the claimants’ case and we want to state before your lordship that they lack merit and we have replied them appropriately.
“In a preliminary objection before the court, we seek that the matter of the claimant be quashed because this court lacks the jurisdiction to hear the matter.
“On another ground, we also urge the court to strike out the matter because it is contentional.”
“Contrary to the claimants claim, there was no transaction in the first place and this and other points we have proved in the preliminary objection of the plaintiff party before the court,” he submittef.