AZU CRABBE J.S.C.
The plaintiff’s action in this case was brought against the three defendants for:
(a) a declaration that the deed of mortgage, under which the second defendant purported to sell the plaintiff’s house to the third defendant, was null and void on the ground that the loan transaction was oppressive and unconscionable as offending against the provisions of the Loans Recovery Ordinance, Cap. 175 (1951 Rev.);
(b) a declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of the said house, which was offered as a security for the loan advanced by the first defendant to the plaintiff; and
(c) N¢400.00 damages for trespass and unlawful attachment of the plaintiff’s property.
It was alleged by the plaintiff in his statement of claim that the first defendant was a moneylender, and in the statement of defence filed on behalf of the defendants it was partially admitted that the first defendant was a moneylender only in 1966 when the first loan was made, but that the second loan in 1967 was a frie…