The Court of Appeal in Lagos has overturned a 2013 Federal High Court ruling that granted Guaranty Trust Bank Plc the right to seize a N30 billion, 44-room mansion in Ikoyi, Lagos, owned by Alhaji Agboola Abiola, son of the late businessman and politician, Chief M.K.O. Abiola.
According to a Certified True Copy of the appellate decision (Appeal No. CA/L/888/2014) obtained by The PUNCH, the court identified critical flaws in the tripartite legal mortgage used by GTBank to justify its foreclosure claim.
In a unanimous decision led by Justice Paul Aimee Bassi, with Justices Polycarp Kwahar and Abdulaziz Anka concurring, the Appeal Court held that the Federal High Court failed to adequately consider allegations of forgery and fraud raised by the appellants.
The appeal challenged a June 20, 2014 ruling that had favoured GTBank based on a motion filed on April 8, 2014. Represented by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Dr. Charles Adeogun-Phillips, the appellants argued that the trial court erred on several grounds, including the bank’s right to amend its affidavit after judgment had been reserved and the validity of the mortgage used to appoint a receiver over the property.
Justice Bassi ruled that the mortgage was inherently defective and could not legally support foreclosure. While the first appellant, RCN Networks Ltd., acknowledged signing the deed, Agboola Abiola—the second appellant—denied signing it, claiming the execution page containing his signature had been fraudulently lifted from another document.
The appellants also accused GTBank of merging two separate loans—₦508 million and ₦1 billion—without their consent. They alleged that after the collateral shares for the ₦508 million loan were sold off, the bank tried to use the same disputed signature to enforce repayment of the ₦1 billion loan.
Although police investigations yielded mixed results—one report suggesting arbitration and another dismissing forgery claims—the appellate court maintained that the doubts over the document’s authenticity could not be ignored.
Justice Bassi highlighted irregularities in the deed’s pagination. While the main body of the mortgage was labeled “2 of 9” through “9 of 9,” the signature page was marked “11 of 17,” suggesting it originated from a different document entirely. He criticized the lower court for dismissing these discrepancies and concentrating only on a single clause in the deed.
He concluded that no judgment should be based on a contested document. “The lower court erred by ruling on a document whose authenticity was seriously in question,” Bassi ruled.
The appellate court nullified the 2014 judgment and ordered both parties to bear their own legal costs.
Advertisement
