FIRST ATLANTIC BANK LIMITED vs RABIH MIKATI & ANOTHER

Per the Affidavit of Interest filed on 24th March 2023, Claimant claims that it has a valid sublease which was executed in its favour by 2nd Respondent in the original suit. A copy of the sublease is attached as Exhibit ‘C’.

That the sublease was secured without notice of the purported Mortgage and the Judgment of this Court. That the Claimant has a prior and valid existing right in the attached property.

That Claimant has since obtaining the sublease renovated, re modelled the said property, installed heavy equipment and has commenced assembling of Toyota and Suzuki vehicles there.

That the said attachment is not valid because the legal requirements for the said attachment was not complied with.

That the Court therefore ought to order for the said property to be released from attachment.

Per the Execution Creditor’s affidavit in dispute, the Execution Creditor granted a loan facility to United Steel Company and a legal Mortgage was created over the attached property which belongs to 2nd Respondent in the original suit. A copy of the Deed Mortgage was attached as Exhibit ‘FAB 1’.

That upon the default of repayment by the principal debtor (United Steel Company) as well as the 2nd Respondent, the Execution Creditor took the necessary steps and proceeded to file in Court a Motion on Notice for an Order for the Judicial Sale of the said property which was granted on 22nd December, 2021 as per Exhibit ‘FAB 2’.

That before the Execution Creditor could proceed to Court to file a Motion on Notice for Reserved Price, Claimant filed a Notice of Claim to which the Execution Creditor filed a Notice of Dispute

That Claimant’s claims that it has an interest in the said property by way of a sub-lease obtained from 2nd Respondent on 23rd September, 2020 for a 5-year period, is a beneficial interest which was obtained during the subsistence of the said Mortgage. That the said sub-lease is not valid as it was obtained without a written consent from the Execution Creditor as mandated by Law.

That the purported prior and validly existing right of Claimant who is a purported ‘sub-lessor/tenant’ in the property can only be subservient or subject to that of the Execution Creditor, who as the Mortgagee has exercised its rights of possession and Judicial Sale.

That the renovation and re-modelling of the said property by Claimant does not change the character of the interest that Claimant has in the property.

That had Claimant conducted due diligence prior to taking out