HELD:

"Firstly, the trial judge found as a fact that there was a breach of the auctioneers Law Section 19 which declares that: (1) No sale by auction of any land shall take place until after at least seven days' public notice thereof made at the principal town of the district in which the land is situated, and also at the place of the intended sale.

HELD:

"There was a clear breach of the provisions of the Auctioneers Law of Oyo State which requires that there be publication before mortgaged property is auctioned in the exercise of the lender's power to sell under Property and Conveyancing Law.

HELD:

"Ex facie, the reliefs sought are for protection by the security agencies to enable the 1st Respondent exercise its possessory rights as a legal mortgagee under the Deeds of Legal Mortgage. But in order for the said rights to be exercised and for the 1st Respondent to be entitled to the security protection to exercise the rights, the rights must have crystallized under the Deeds of Legal Mortgage. The parties sued by the 1st Respondent at the lower Court were not party to the Deeds of Legal Mortgage, so they could not have assisted the lower Court in the determination of whether the rights under the legal mortgage had crystallized. Without a doubt, the 1st Respondent is correct in its contention on the legal effect of a deed of legal mortgage and the position in which it puts the 1st Respondent as mortgagee vis-a-vis the mortgage property: OKUNEYE vs. FBN PLC (supra) and ALL STATES TRUST BANK vs. NSOFOR (supra).

"In the instant case, the property was mortgaged to secure a loan. The 3rd respondent had consistently, persistently, stridently and strenuously stated, that the property was not foreclosed and there was no evidence to the contrary in the record of appeal placed before us. See Paragraph 6 of the 3rd respondents amended statement of defence earlier reproduced in this judgment.