Suit n° HCB/08S/12
High Court of Mezam Decisão de 01/06/2012
Measures Of Execution - Application For Diversion - Nullity Of Mortgage - Validity Of Mortgage - Attachment - Administration Of Estate - Letters Of Administration - Co-ownership - Alienation - Trustees - Powers Of Administrator - Personal Estate - Indivisibility Of Property - Conditions For Mortgage - Specifications - Observations And Declarations - Eventual Hearing - Family Property - Security - Capacity To Mortgage - Distribution Of Property - Interest Of Beneficiaries - Personal Representatives - Dismissal Of Application - Order Of Sale
The court had to rule on an application for diversion of attached property based on the nullity of its mortgage. To arrive at its decision, the court had to determine the validity of the mortgage deed by a single co-owner and the possibility of attachment of the mortgaged property. Section 121 of the 1997 Uniform Act Organising Securities provides that persons whose rights over property are subject to duly notified conditions, cancellation or rescission, may only grant a mortgage on the property subject to the same conditions, cancellation or rescission. However, mortgages granted by all the co-owners of joint property shall remain effective regardless of the outcome of any subsequent sale by auction or sharing of the property. Though the 1997 Uniform Act did not address the question of mortgage of indivisible property by one single co-owner, the position is that a single co-owner can mortgage joint property but the interest of all the beneficiaries must be taken into consideration thus, the mortgage is valid.
Concerning the possibility of attachment of the mortgaged joint property, section 249 of the Uniform Act Organising Simplified Recovery Procedures and Measures of Execution stipulates that the indivisible part of real property may not be put up for sale before the sharing or liquidation that may be prompted by the creditors of a co-owner. Hence, the property can be attached but cannot be sold before distribution. The application for diversion was, therefore, dismissed.
Sections 15, 117, 121 And 127 Uas 1997,
Sections 194 And 227 Uas 2010,
Sections 249, 308, 309, 310 And 311 Uasrpme
