Africa-Press – Liberia. In an opinion issued on May 28 and read by Associate Justice Jamesetta H. Wolokolie, the Court dismissed a Bill of Information filed by the CDC, describing the action as an improper attempt to delay the implementation of a final judgment.
The Supreme Court of Liberia has denied a legal effort by the Congress for Democratic Change (CDC) to halt enforcement of a 2016 ruling that mandates the party’s removal from a disputed 4.23-acre property in Monrovia.
In an opinion issued on May 28 and read by Associate Justice Jamesetta H. Wolokolie, the Court dismissed a Bill of Information filed by the CDC, describing the action as an improper attempt to delay the implementation of a final judgment.
The decision was unanimously concurred by Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene G. Yuoh and Associate Justices Yussif D. Kaba, Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay Sr., and Ceaineh D. Clinton Johnson.
“This Court has held that a tenant in possession of a conveyed property is estopped from denying, challenging, or disputing the landlord’s title,” Justice Wolokolie said, citing the 2013 case of Jallah v. Intestate Estate of George S.B. Tulay.
The Court reaffirmed its 2016 ruling that the Intestate Estate of Martha Stubblefield Bernard is the lawful owner of the property, which had been leased in part to the CDC since 2005 through the Testate Estate of William Thomas Bernard. The decision reasserted the eviction order against both the Bernard estate and the CDC.
The land conflict originated in 2014, when the Stubblefield Bernard estate filed an ejectment suit against the Bernard estate and the CDC, which had been occupying the land under a lease arrangement. In 2016, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Stubblefield Bernard estate, ordering the eviction of both the CDC and its lessor.
Despite the Court’s decision, enforcement was delayed after the estate’s counsel, Cllr. F. Musah Dean Jr., was appointed as Minister of Justice. It wasn’t until March 2024—after the estate hired J. Johnny Momoh & Associates Legal Chambers—that enforcement proceedings resumed.
In a bid to retain possession of the land, the CDC entered negotiations to purchase the property and, in doing so, paid US$360,000 in rent arrears covering 2018 to 2023, along with an additional US$50,000 in damages. These payments, according to the Court, demonstrated the CDC’s recognition of the Stubblefield Bernard estate as the lawful landlord.
When the negotiations fell through, the estate moved to enforce the original eviction order. In response, the CDC filed the Bill of Information, claiming it had been denied due process in the initial proceedings.
However, the Supreme Court dismissed the argument, noting that CDC had clearly acknowledged its lease relationship with the 1st respondent—the Stubblefield Bernard estate—through its financial actions.
“CDC’s possession of the property was dependent on the title of its lessor, the Testate Estate of William Thomas Bernard. Since the Court already ruled that this estate has no title, the CDC has no valid claim to remain on the property,” Justice Wolokolie emphasized.
The CDC also asked the Court to consolidate its Bill of Information with a pending appeal involving the Stubblefield Bernard estate and the Intestate Estate of Danielle P. Tucker Bernard. The Supreme Court swiftly rejected this request, ruling that the CDC has no standing in that separate legal matter.
“The informant, CDC, is attempting to circumvent its removal from the property by the 1st respondent while the case between the 1st respondent and Danielle Tucker Bernard plays out,” the Court stated.
The justices made it clear that any risk incurred by the CDC in leasing or attempting to buy the land must be borne by the party itself. “The CDC must take responsibility for its decisions; it cannot transfer the consequences of those decisions to the judiciary,” the Court added.
In its opinion, the Court cautioned lawyers about misusing the Bill of Information, reiterating that such filings are not to be used as tools for re-arguing settled matters.
“We do not see in the informant’s Bill of Information where it alleges that the lower court or the 1st respondent has attempted to interpret the judgment of the Supreme Court improperly,” the justices wrote. “Clearly this Bill of Information filed by the informant is a legal charade and an affront to the Court which the Court considers impermissible.”
The Court reminded legal practitioners that under Part 12 of the Revised Rules of the Supreme Court, sanctions—including fines, suspension, or even disbarment—could be imposed for using Bills of Information inappropriately.
For More News And Analysis About Liberia Follow Africa-Press
