JUDICIAL CONTROL OF MORTGAGEE POWERS, ILLEGALITY, AND FAIR HEARING IN NIGERIAN COMMERCIAL JURISPRUDENCE: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF AYOOLA v DOMINION TRUST LTD

Abstract

This article undertakes a rigorous doctrinal and jurisprudential analysis of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ayoola v Dominion Trust Ltd, focusing on the limits of judicial control over the exercise of a mortgagee’s power of sale in Nigerian commercial law. The case raises complex issues relating to secured lending, alleged repayment, undervalue sale, procedural irregularities, and claims of denial of fair hearing. It interrogates fundamental questions concerning the evidential burden in proving indebtedness, the sanctity of pleadings, the scope of illegality in commercial transactions, and the extent to which procedural infractions may vitiate judicial outcomes. The article argues that the Court reaffirmed orthodox principles governing mortgage transactions, particularly the primacy of contractual terms and the strict burden placed on mortgagors seeking to restrain the exercise of a mortgagee’s power of sale. It further demonstrates that the Court adopted a disciplined approach to procedural law by declining to elevate technical breaches, including delayed judgment delivery and alleged denial of fair hearing, into jurisdictional defects absent proof of miscarriage of justice. The article concludes that the decision consolidates Nigerian appellate jurisprudence on evidentiary evaluation, illegality, and appellate restraint, reflecting a maturing commercial jurisprudence that privileges substantive justice while maintaining procedural discipline.