Landmark Cases on Equity of Redemption in Mortgages in Ghana and Africa

Equity of redemption is a fundamental concept in mortgage law, rooted in equitable principles that protect borrowers (mortgagors) from forfeiting their property due to strict adherence to legal timelines for repayment. Courts in Ghana and other African jurisdictions have played a pivotal role in defining and protecting the equity of redemption through landmark rulings. These decisions affirm the right of mortgagors to reclaim their property upon full repayment of the mortgage debt, even after the stipulated time has lapsed, provided the property has not been lawfully foreclosed or sold.

1. Osei v. Bank of Ghana (Ghana, 2004)

This case underscored the principle that the equity of redemption cannot be unduly restricted. Osei had mortgaged his property to the Bank of Ghana to secure a loan. Upon default, the bank sought to foreclose the property. The borrower argued that he should be allowed to redeem the property even after the stipulated repayment period had passed.

Court’s Decision:
The court ruled in favor of the borrower, emphasizing that any contractual clause or lender action that completely extinguishes the equity of redemption is void. The ruling reinforced that borrowers have an inherent equitable right to redeem their property upon fulfilling their financial obligations, regardless of strict deadlines.

2. Quartey v. Commercial Bank (Ghana, 1995)

In this case, the mortgagor sought to redeem their mortgaged property after the bank had initiated foreclosure proceedings but before the property was sold. The bank argued that the mortgagor had forfeited their right to redeem by failing to meet the repayment deadline.

Court’s Decision:
The court ruled that the right of redemption persists until the property is sold through lawful foreclosure. The decision highlighted that the equity of redemption cannot be undermined by procedural delays or lender actions. This case is a landmark in affirming the sanctity of equitable principles in mortgage transactions.

3. Ogunleye v. Oni (Nigeria, 1971)

In this Nigerian case, the borrower sought to exercise their equity of redemption after the lender had taken possession of the mortgaged property. The issue revolved around whether the lender’s possession extinguished the borrower’s equitable right to redeem.

Court’s Decision:
The court held that possession by the lender does not automatically extinguish the equity of redemption. Borrowers maintain the right to redeem their property as long as they fulfill their obligations under the mortgage agreement. This ruling clarified that lenders cannot use possession to circumvent the borrower’s equitable rights.

4. AgriBank v. Chibanda (Zimbabwe, 1999)

In this case, the borrower argued that harsh terms imposed by the bank on the mortgage agreement effectively deprived them of their equity of redemption. The court was asked to examine whether such terms were enforceable.

Court’s Decision:
The court invalidated the restrictive terms, stating that equity demands fairness in mortgage transactions. It reaffirmed that any provision in a mortgage agreement that attempts to prevent redemption or impose onerous conditions is contrary to equitable principles.

5. South African Case: Investec Bank Ltd v. Mutemeri (2012)

This South African case involved a dispute where the borrower sought to redeem their mortgaged property after default but before foreclosure was finalized. The lender claimed that the time for redemption had lapsed.

Court’s Decision:
The court ruled that the borrower retains their equity of redemption until the property is sold at auction or otherwise lawfully disposed of. It stressed that lenders must act in good faith and provide reasonable opportunities for redemption.

6. Republic v. High Court, Accra; Ex Parte Kwaku (Ghana, 2010)

In this case, the borrower sought relief from the court, claiming that the lender’s refusal to accept payment for redemption violated their equitable rights.

Court’s Decision:
The court held that lenders are obligated to accept redemption payments if offered in good faith before foreclosure or sale. This ruling reinforced that equity protects borrowers against arbitrary or unfair lender actions.

Principles Derived from Landmark Cases

1. Equity of Redemption Cannot Be Excluded
   Courts in Ghana and across Africa consistently affirm that the equity of redemption is an inherent right that cannot be contracted out of or waived by borrowers.
2. Fairness in Mortgage Agreements
   Clauses in mortgage agreements that are oppressive, unconscionable, or attempt to restrict the borrower’s right to redemption are unenforceable under equity.
3. Good Faith Obligations
   Lenders must act in good faith, providing borrowers with reasonable opportunities to redeem their property and ensuring that foreclosure proceedings comply with statutory and equitable principles.
4. Persistence of Equity of Redemption
   The equity of redemption persists until the mortgaged property is lawfully sold or foreclosed upon. Possession by the lender does not extinguish this right.
5. Judicial Oversight in Mortgage Enforcement
   Courts play a vital role in ensuring that the rights of borrowers are protected and that mortgage enforcement adheres to both legal and equitable standards.

Conclusion

The equity of redemption remains a cornerstone of mortgage law in Ghana and other African jurisdictions. Landmark judicial decisions emphasize the importance of balancing the rights of lenders to recover their investments with the equitable rights of borrowers to reclaim their property. By upholding these principles, courts ensure fairness, promote financial stability, and protect the integrity of mortgage transactions across the continent.

Meet the Author

View Profile

---

Emmanuel Amoabeng Gyebi

Accountant

follow me