Land appeal over mortgage consent and matrimonial property; the court upheld the mortgage but set aside the award of general damages against the appellant.
The court held that the initial spouse consent constituted a continuing security, binding the respondent to subsequent loans secured by the same property. The property qualifies as matrimonial property, and the respondent's consent was valid and continuous. The DLHT erred in requiring fresh consent for subsequent loans. The appellant is entitled to exercise power of sale due to loan default.
The appeal is dismissed because the dispute over Plot No. 138 was already settled by a consent judgment in Application No. 22/2009, rendering the matter res judicata and barring further appeal. The appellant failed to prove the certificate was not separated, failed to prove lack of mortgagee consent, and failed to establish any procedural or evidentiary error by the trial tribunal. The evidence favored the respondents, confirming the 2nd respondent as the lawful owner.
The applicant established a prima facie case as the validity of the mortgage is in question due to alleged lack of consent. The risk of irreparable loss to the applicant and his family if the house is sold outweighs the bank's inconvenience, and the balance of convenience favors the applicant. All three conditions for a temporary injunction are met.
The application disclosed arguable grounds for appeal, specifically regarding consent to the mortgage and limitation period, justifying the grant of leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Plaintiff failed to prove lack of consent or forgery; valid spousal consent was established. Sale and transfer of property followed legal procedures and were valid. Reliefs sought by plaintiff not granted.
The High Court Land Division granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, finding the applicant had valid grounds and that the decision was appealable.
The High Court dismissed an application for interim injunction against sale of a matrimonial home, finding no prima facie case, irreparable injury, or balance of convenience.
The High Court upheld dismissal of an appeal challenging a mortgage over matrimonial property, finding the appellant failed to prove her consent was fraudulently obtained.