A Lagos High Court has found as fradulent the sale of a property used by Otunba Adedoyin Olayide Ogunde, a deceased Union Bank customer, as collateral for a loan taken in 1995......
Justice I.O. Harrison of Court 18, Lagos State High Court, delivered a judgement in a case instituted by the beneficiaries of the estate of Ogunde against the bank on May 31,2024.
Ogunde, the owner of the buildings, died in 1997. He had not liquidated a N7 million loan taken from Union Bank on May 23, 1995 and for which he had mortgaged his compound of buildings located at 6 Moore road, off Bourdillion road, Ikoyi, Lagos State. Ikoyi is a pricey area in Lagos that is home to multibillionaires.
The property consisted eight units of four-bedroom flats and a penthouse, a 10-bedroom family house and a three-storey building consisting 3-bedroom flats.
To recover its money, the bank sold the properties through a private treaty without a recourse to the procedural steps dictated by applicable mortgage laws.
FRAUDULENT SALE AND COURT LITIGATION
Before his death, Ogunde had prepared a final will and appointed some individuals as personal representatives and executors of the will.
Ogunde mortgaged the property as a single entity. But the bank divided it into pieces and sold it to different buyers as different entities. Meanwhile, the bank had told the deceased’s personal representatives that it was not going to partition the property before sale because it was mortgaged as a single entity.
Without the knowledge of the personal representatives, the bank sold the mini estate while Ogunde’s children were mostly infants. When they became of age, they asked the court to declare the sale of their father’s property by the bank illegal.
Several years after the case, numbered LD/2624/1999, was originally filed, the trial commenced on September 18, 2018, according to the certified true copy of the judgement obtained by FIJ.
In the suit, the Ogunde family contended that the sale and the processes relied on by the bank to dispose of their benefactor’s property was characterised by fraud and collusion.
Represented by O.V. Ekundayo, a legal practitioner, the family told the court that the assets were of a higher value than what the bank placed on it, and that there was a collusion between the bank and the purchasers.
Built on 2.2 acres of land, the bank partitioned the property into Plots 6A, 6B, 6C and 6D. Plot A had nine flats and eight-roomed boys-quarters and sold to Cletus Ibeto, the chairman of Ibeto Group, a local company involved in cement production and other products, at an undervalued price of N30 million.
The bank sold Plot B, with four units of four-bedroom flats and two-bedroom boys-quarters thereon, to Ogundayo Osundayo. The third plot, consisting four units of four-bedroom flats and two-bedroom boys-quarters, was sold to Wright. The last portion, Plot D, consisting three units of two-bedroom flats and an unstated number of boys-quarters, was sold to Unigate Investments. Together undervalued, these were sold for N30 million.
UNION BANK TO PAY FINES
The mere fact that Ogunde defaulted in repaying the loan was no valid excuse for the bank to fling his property at ridiculous rates simply for the purpose of realising the debt owed; and doing so at a price that is so low is evidence of fraud, the court ruled.
It further concluded that the bank had a lawful duty to deal with the property in good faith.
“The only obligation incumbent on a mortgagee under a power of sale of his mortgage is that he should act in good faith,” the judge said. “The court will always be on the lookout that the mortgagee acts bonafide and observes reasonable precautions to obtain not the best price, but a proper price.”
By the sale of Plot 6A, the bank had fully realised its money and had some balance to remit to the family. Without remitting the balance, it went ahead to sell the rest of the buildings.
By going against what it had told Ogunde’s personal representatives on the partition of the property, the court ruled that it was an argument that “does not hold water”.
“It smacks of fraud, collusion and definitely does not show good faith,” the court said.
“The court cannot comprehend why the 6th Defendant (Union Bank) went ahead after the sale of Plot 6A for N30,000,000.00 (Thirty Million Naira) (wherein it had realized its debt, interest and costs and there was still a balance ensuing to the deceased’s estate), to sell Plot 6B, 6C and 6D. Obviously, the intention was not to realize any outstanding indebtedness as none existent at that point. The court cannot help but find that the 6th Defendant acted recklessly and in bad faith.”
Union Bank further failed accountability principles when it withheld vital documents, including the deceased’s statement of account, from the court, showing that those documents, if produced, could have impacted negatively on the bank.
The judge also concluded that the buildings were grossly undervalued in the light of available market research surveys carried out in relation to similar properties at the time.
While the court did not set aside the transactions because no evidence showed there was a collusion between the bank and the purchasers, it ordered the bank to pay the family N112,050,000 being the difference in what could have been realised had the property not been undervalued by the bank.
The bank was also ordered to an annual interest of 10% on the said amount from 1998 till the delivery of the judgement and from the date of judgement until the whole money is fully paid.
Ogunde, the owner of the buildings, died in 1997. He had not liquidated a N7 million loan taken from Union Bank on May 23, 1995 and for which he had mortgaged his compound of buildings located at 6 Moore road, off Bourdillion road, Ikoyi, Lagos State. Ikoyi is a pricey area in Lagos that is home to multibillionaires.
The property consisted eight units of four-bedroom flats and a penthouse, a 10-bedroom family house and a three-storey building consisting 3-bedroom flats.
To recover its money, the bank sold the properties through a private treaty without a recourse to the procedural steps dictated by applicable mortgage laws.
FRAUDULENT SALE AND COURT LITIGATION
Before his death, Ogunde had prepared a final will and appointed some individuals as personal representatives and executors of the will.
Ogunde mortgaged the property as a single entity. But the bank divided it into pieces and sold it to different buyers as different entities. Meanwhile, the bank had told the deceased’s personal representatives that it was not going to partition the property before sale because it was mortgaged as a single entity.
Without the knowledge of the personal representatives, the bank sold the mini estate while Ogunde’s children were mostly infants. When they became of age, they asked the court to declare the sale of their father’s property by the bank illegal.
Several years after the case, numbered LD/2624/1999, was originally filed, the trial commenced on September 18, 2018, according to the certified true copy of the judgement obtained by FIJ.
In the suit, the Ogunde family contended that the sale and the processes relied on by the bank to dispose of their benefactor’s property was characterised by fraud and collusion.
Represented by O.V. Ekundayo, a legal practitioner, the family told the court that the assets were of a higher value than what the bank placed on it, and that there was a collusion between the bank and the purchasers.
Built on 2.2 acres of land, the bank partitioned the property into Plots 6A, 6B, 6C and 6D. Plot A had nine flats and eight-roomed boys-quarters and sold to Cletus Ibeto, the chairman of Ibeto Group, a local company involved in cement production and other products, at an undervalued price of N30 million.
The bank sold Plot B, with four units of four-bedroom flats and two-bedroom boys-quarters thereon, to Ogundayo Osundayo. The third plot, consisting four units of four-bedroom flats and two-bedroom boys-quarters, was sold to Wright. The last portion, Plot D, consisting three units of two-bedroom flats and an unstated number of boys-quarters, was sold to Unigate Investments. Together undervalued, these were sold for N30 million.
UNION BANK TO PAY FINES
The mere fact that Ogunde defaulted in repaying the loan was no valid excuse for the bank to fling his property at ridiculous rates simply for the purpose of realising the debt owed; and doing so at a price that is so low is evidence of fraud, the court ruled.
It further concluded that the bank had a lawful duty to deal with the property in good faith.
“The only obligation incumbent on a mortgagee under a power of sale of his mortgage is that he should act in good faith,” the judge said. “The court will always be on the lookout that the mortgagee acts bonafide and observes reasonable precautions to obtain not the best price, but a proper price.”
By the sale of Plot 6A, the bank had fully realised its money and had some balance to remit to the family. Without remitting the balance, it went ahead to sell the rest of the buildings.
By going against what it had told Ogunde’s personal representatives on the partition of the property, the court ruled that it was an argument that “does not hold water”.
“It smacks of fraud, collusion and definitely does not show good faith,” the court said.
“The court cannot comprehend why the 6th Defendant (Union Bank) went ahead after the sale of Plot 6A for N30,000,000.00 (Thirty Million Naira) (wherein it had realized its debt, interest and costs and there was still a balance ensuing to the deceased’s estate), to sell Plot 6B, 6C and 6D. Obviously, the intention was not to realize any outstanding indebtedness as none existent at that point. The court cannot help but find that the 6th Defendant acted recklessly and in bad faith.”
Union Bank further failed accountability principles when it withheld vital documents, including the deceased’s statement of account, from the court, showing that those documents, if produced, could have impacted negatively on the bank.
The judge also concluded that the buildings were grossly undervalued in the light of available market research surveys carried out in relation to similar properties at the time.
While the court did not set aside the transactions because no evidence showed there was a collusion between the bank and the purchasers, it ordered the bank to pay the family N112,050,000 being the difference in what could have been realised had the property not been undervalued by the bank.
The bank was also ordered to an annual interest of 10% on the said amount from 1998 till the delivery of the judgement and from the date of judgement until the whole money is fully paid.
Chei
ReplyDeleteNa wa oh
Union Bank, maka why??? This is not fair at all.
ReplyDeleteThis one is pure wickedness
ReplyDeleteKorokoro scam and fraud!!! I understand some bank staff actually turn to agent and make a killing from such transactions
ReplyDeleteFacts
DeleteBanks are thieves. A greedy person got entangled in this web, let them pay the difference back to the family. Big time thieves
ReplyDeleteI won’t be satisfied with this sef. What is 112m and 10% compared to the cost of those units today.
ReplyDeleteIt’s just sad. This is an eye opener. Let us all plan for death as we plan for our lives cos tell me why his wife wasn’t involved in the sale of that apartment?. At that time.
Meanwhile, it’s clear as day that they was a collusion between those purchasing those units and the bank. But I am sure they will never find evidence. Cash must have changed hands. Corruption everywhere.
A better Nigeria starts from the common man
Which of the several wives would he involve?
DeleteGreedy men that are not satisfied with one wife, that is how their afterlife looks like.
Set awon polygamy is the best
The 112m is a good judgement
DeleteAnon 13:16 did you read the entire post at all?
DeleteAnon 14:12 what has wife or wives got to do with the case?
It's more than 10 billion if you add the interest. 100m is the monthly amount they're to pay separately until they pay the 10billion.
DeleteIf you check well that property was bought by one of union bank top director.
ReplyDeleteSense plenty for you head ooo
DeleteTrue talk
The person that bought the property him self wicked..
Hello iya Boys
Union bank again? Jimoh Ibrahim is dragging them one side for owing him millions of dollars and this again.
ReplyDeleteVery useless bank, if you see what they did to me and my 4month old baby! I went live on Facebook and they seized my phone!
DeleteSorry dear. Call them out. Shout it till you get attention.
DeleteJimoh is part of the looters of Nigeria. He got Nicon, with its high rise, got Nigeria Airways that used to be the only airline back then, got Nicon Noga Hilton (now called Transcorp Hotel) looted it and is back in the senate. He should be behind bars in a sane country. Please don’t compare him to this family that his cohorts cheated✌🏾
DeleteBig, strong... reliable?
ReplyDeleteNah. They're no longer reliable.
DeleteJesus!
ReplyDeleteThieves in suit!
I read till the end.
ReplyDeleteThis is gross injustice and criminal from the Bank.
DOZZYBEST.
This is wickedness in bold day light.
ReplyDeleteUnion Bank and their wahala.
ReplyDeleteThat bank will soon run down
ReplyDeleteLet me go and withdraw my 5000
This is why people should sue
ReplyDeleteIt may take time but justice can come
Me I kuku see the bank as old people's bank..very backward and mean bank..
ReplyDeleteImagine the wickedness!
ReplyDeleteThank God for this judgment. It's fair.
ReplyDeleteGood for them thieves in suit
ReplyDeleteAm happy for the outcome of the judgement, awon ika eda.
ReplyDeleteThey deserve a billion naira or more. union bank ole
ReplyDeleteIt's 10 billion if you apply the interest rates the judge asked. I did the calcs
DeleteBanks sell for what is owed to them, not market value
ReplyDeleteIn Canada, you must sell at market value, take the portion owed and give the balance to the person or in this case, the family. If 30m was more than sufficient to pat back what was owed, the executioner didn't do well.
DeleteEven at that, the bank had recovered the debt and interest from the sale of the first plot, so why sell other plots?
DeleteThis is unfair. They should be compensated enough to buy equivalents of those other properties at the current market value. The executioners of the estate failed the family. It's important for married couples to be open about their finances and assets with one another. His wife may have been able to save those properties instead of entrusting his children's future to executioners aka family members or friends that may even strike a deal to sell it off and get a %. They should have brought a buyer for one of the properties or sold another property to pay off the debt. This almost happened to a young widow but God came through for her and she was able to sell another of her husband's property and bring the money on the last day. The bank staff were so shocked and couldn't even smile all through the transaction because they thought she wouldn't be able to pay back her late husband's loan after they rejected her pleas to extend the deadline. She paid off the loan and collected the documents to the property from the bank.
ReplyDeleteWow! I'm happy for her,truly married people should be open to each other
DeleteYou made a very nice point there.but the the little I know about writing a Will is that the benefactors are not made executiontor of a Will.the executiontor did a poor job,why did he not sue the bank for thinking of selling the entire property.if it was brought to the attention of the court when the bank say it will not partition the property,court would have over rules the bank.. the wife also do not do well unless she was late before all these ugly incidents
DeleteAwon ole.
ReplyDeleteSuch wick.edness. how can you plan to eat someone's life's labour. Not even related in anyway ooo
ReplyDeleteA man with his own family Nd infant children then? How mean can people be?
Wished the bank was mandated to buy same amount of property for the family in same location. Especially since they had recovered their money from the first sale.
Also refusing to present the deceased statement of account might be an indication the loan was almost paid off.
There's a practice that is very common in banking sector.any loan that bank gives out is insured.the terms of the insurance included that 1)where the borrower falls to repay his loan and die, insurance will pay the money.2)where there is fire outbreak, insurance company will pay.does this means that the loan was not insured before disbursement? this is another area the family and it's attorney should look into.was the loan not insured?if not,why?if insured,what were the terms of the insurance policy?and other questions.i find it difficult to believe that as at 1995 or so that banks have not started insuring loans before disbursement.
ReplyDelete