SIC LIFE SAVINGS & LOANS (PLAINTIFF) vs. TRANSY TRANSPORT (DEFENDANT)

In this application the Applicant prays this Court for reserve price and for the fixing of a forced sale value. The Respondent is opposed to the application on the grounds that the value of the property has been devalued. Respondent argues that in 2016 a valuation was done in respect of the property at the instance of the Applicant. The Court appointed another valuer to value the property so as to give a third opinion. I have examined the 3 valuation reports which were filed by the parties herein and the Court appointed valuer. I have also considered the case put forward by the parties in their respective affidavits. It is noted that the transaction which gave rise to the debt took place in 2016. At the inception of the transaction the Applicant herein requested for a valuation of the property the subject matter of the present application. It was based on this valuation that the Applicant accepted the property in question as collateral property or security for the facility granted. ...