Banksterbusters Playlist

Below are the relevant sections from the 1996 Court of Appeal decision in UBK v Sahib & others, which demonstrate beyond doubt that in the absence of a mortgage contract that contains all of the terms and conditions of the agreement and the signatures of both the mortgagor [the alleged borrower] and the mortgagee [the alleged lender], pursuant to section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 and the authorities given below, no charge against the mortgagor’s property can be legally enforced.

This landmark case is a vindication of all administrative processes that demand production of an enforceable bilateral contract signed by both parties, without which, the bankster has no lawful claim over the mortgagor’s property, since the mere deposit of title deeds with the land registry can no longer be accepted by the courts as a contract for the sale and/or disposition of an interest in land, notwithstanding the continued common practice of the lower courts to apply the law as it was prior to the 1989 Act.

Official Channel

Share: Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Share on Facebook0Share on Reddit0Share on StumbleUpon0Pin on Pinterest0Email this to someone
Posted in Banksterbusters.