CRDB BANK PLC VS AFRICHICK HATCHERS LTD COMM CASE NO
The 2nd and 3rd defendants were discharged as guarantors due to material variation of the loan facility without their consent, as required by section 87 of the Law of Contract Act. The first defendant defaulted in repayment, but interest after 10th October 2012 was not awarded due to the plaintiff's promise of additional funding, which created a legitimate expectation but not a binding contract. The demand notice was valid as the suit was not for enforcement of mortgage.
Source excerpt
- Loan default
- Guarantee discharge
- Variation of contract
- Mortgage notice requirements
- Collateral agreements