Monrovia — Petitioners within the protracted Hage property dispute, together with Oumou Sirleaf Hage and others, have petitioned the Supreme Court docket of Liberia for a Writ of Prohibition towards Sixth Judicial Circuit Decide Peter W. Gbeneweleh, searching for to cease him from implementing a ruling that put aside a unanimous jury verdict in a fraud-in-title case.
By Victoria G. Wesseh
Of their petition, the litigants argue that Decide Gbeneweleh acted outdoors his jurisdiction and in violation of binding Supreme Court docket precedent when he nullified the jury’s verdict quite than transmitting it to the Probate Court docket for dedication of property possession.
The petitioners cite a 2022 Supreme Court docket choice in Oumou Sirleaf Hage et al. v. His Honour J. Boima Kontoe, which clearly directed that disputes over title be resolved via a trial of info by a jury, with the ensuing verdict despatched to the Probate Court docket. In line with the Supreme Court docket’s mandate, the trial court docket’s obligation was non-discretionary: certify the query of title to the Sixth Judicial Circuit for jury trial and ahead the decision to the Probate Court docket.
Nevertheless, the petitioners allege that Decide Gbeneweleh disregarded this mandate by setting apart the unanimous verdict, re-evaluating proof, making his personal factual findings, and refusing to transmit the decision as ordered.
They additional contend that the decide’s conduct is extremely vires, unconstitutional, and opposite to Liberian regulation, arguing that he improperly ordered a brand new trial as a substitute of performing the ministerial act required by the Supreme Court docket.
Counting on Civil Process Regulation § 26.4, the petitioners preserve {that a} decide could put aside a jury verdict solely upon a movement for a brand new trial filed inside 4 days after the decision. They assert that no such movement was well timed filed, rendering the decide’s unilateral motion an abuse of judicial discretion.
The petitioners additionally invoke precedent, together with McArthur, 15 LLR 394, to argue that prohibition is the suitable treatment to stop a trial decide from taking additional unlawful motion the place jurisdiction has been exceeded.
Given what they describe as a transparent departure from Supreme Court docket directions, the petitioners are asking the excessive court docket to restrain Decide Gbeneweleh from implementing his ruling and to compel the reinstatement and transmission of the unique jury verdict to the Probate Court docket for last dedication.
Background of the Case
The dispute facilities on the property of the late Hage household, involving competing claims over possession and title to parts of the property property. The battle escalated right into a fraud-in-title allegation, prompting litigation to find out the rightful possession of the disputed belongings.
Given the character of the dispute, the matter reached the Supreme Court docket of Liberia in 2022 within the case Oumou Sirleaf Hage et al. v. His Honour J. Boima Kontoe. In that ruling, the Supreme Court docket held that questions of title and possession should be resolved via a trial of info by a jury within the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court docket. The excessive court docket additional ordered that when the jury reached a verdict, the trial court docket was to certify and transmit the decision to the Probate Court docket, which has jurisdiction to make the ultimate dedication on property distribution inside an property.
In compliance with the Supreme Court docket’s mandate, the query of title was subsequently tried earlier than a jury within the Sixth Judicial Circuit. After listening to the proof, the jury returned a unanimous verdict on the problem of fraud in title.
Nevertheless, as a substitute of transmitting the decision to the Probate Court docket as instructed, the presiding decide, Decide Peter W. Gbeneweleh, put aside the jury’s choice and ordered additional proceedings. This motion reignited the dispute and prompted the petitioners to hunt the Supreme Court docket’s intervention as soon as once more.
The petitioners now argue that the trial decide’s motion quantities to a departure from the Supreme Court docket’s clear mandate, an overreach of judicial authority, and a violation of established civil process. They contend that the decide’s position was restricted to forwarding the jury’s findings and that any deviation from that directive undermines the finality of jury verdicts and the authority of the Supreme Court docket.
