Africa-Press – Liberia. The Judge of the Civil Law Court, Kennedy J. Peabody, has been asked to dismiss a motion for Special Appearance filed by defendants Elsie Cooper, Jeanie Cooper and Alex Garley in action of ejection lawsuit filed by Rodney D. Sieh.
But Sieh, however, through his lawyer Cllr. Jonathan T. Massaquoi on Thursday, 17 March, filed resistance asking the court to deny a motion for Special Appearance.
“The respondent in the above entitled cause of action prays this court to deny and strike Movant’s Motion for Special Appearance from the records of this court, and other the said matter proceeded with on the merit,” Cllr. Massaquoi stated.
Cllr. Massaquoi said the entire Movant’s Motion for Special Appearance, is a fit for dismissal, because co-defendants Jeanie M. Cooper and Alex Garley were served with the Writ of Summons by the Sheriff of the court on 12 March as evidenced by the Sheriff’s return, but they failed to file their answers as required by statute without ten days on or before Saturday, 22 March as shown from the records of the case file.
However, he noted that the other defendant Elise Cooper was not served because she could not be found within the bailiwick of the Republic of Liberia.
Cllr. Massaquoi recounted that on 16 April, his client, Sieh, was served a motion for enlargement of time by Movant Jeanie M. Cooper through her lawyer, Cllr. Joyce Reeves Woods, which was filed with the court asking for extension of time to answer the averments as contained in the plaintiff’s complain.
However, on 14 June, nearly two months after the motion was filed and served, the said application for additional or extension of time was argued pro and cons by the plaintiff and defendant, and same was granted in favor of the defendants and were given three days to file their responsive pleadings.
“That on August 16, 2021, plaintiff was served what was intended to be defendants’ answer to the plaintiff complain which was filed on March 12, 2022, five (5) months and two (2) days after service upon Movants Jeanie M. Cooper and Alex Garley, even though, she (Jeanie M. Cooper) had her lawyer before this lawsuit, that is, Movant Jeanie M. Cooper was even respresented by Cllr. Joyce Reeves Woods at the Paynesville Magisterial Court, when she intervened on behalf of Alex Garley who was a lessee of the Cooper’s Estate,” Cllr. Masaquoi said.
“Thus, the Jeanie M. Cooper dismissed the said summary proceedings to recover possession of real property, in keeping with law.”
Cllr. Massaquoi said the defendants by their own request, and action, have not only deceived and misrepresented the facts and issues raised, but Jeanie M. Cooper has disrespected and challenged this court’s authority, thereby exposing the dignity and integrity of this court to public redicule and embarrassment by wantonly filing a “bad faith” motion for Special Appearance.
“Hence, the said motion for enlargement of time must be stricken since she filed her answer after the motion for extension of time was heard and granted as shown from the records of the case file,” he added.
“And also because as to count (1) of the Movant’s motion respondent submits and contends that the Movant was brought under the jurisdiction of this court after this court’ precepts we’re property served against the Movant’s and Alex Garley on 12 March according to Sheriff’s return, as required by law. Hence,the wirt of summons was duly served on Movant Jeanie M. Cooper as one of the the party co-defendant, after being property identified by Rodney D. Sieh.”
It is principle of law that the Sheriff return is presumed to be correct and, as such, this court jurisdiction cannot be challenged or questioned by the Movant in this premise. Hence, this motion for special appearance will not lie for reason stated herein.
“Moreover, respondent submits and contends that movants motion for Special Appearance challenging the jurisdiction of this court over their person can not be subsequently made null and void predicated upon the granting of application of extension of time and the responsive pleading of the defendant hereby.”
“But the Respondent further maintains that in the prior pleadings the defendants had not questioned the jurisdiction of this over their persons; thereby they could not at the eleventh hour being seen on record raising jurisdiction issue in this regard, contrary to law.”
The Supreme Court of Liberia has held that “when a Writ of ysummons is returned showing that one of the several defendants has been served, the court acquainted in personal jurisdiction over the remaining defendants who, although referring to in the Writ of Summons only as “et al.” Hence this resistant will lie.
“Wherefore, respondent prays your honor to Judge J. Kennedy Peabody to dimiss Movant’s motion on grounds that it lacks legal soundness and foundation to sustain,” Cllr. Massaquoi stated.
For More News And Analysis About Liberia Follow Africa-Press
