The Civil Law Court annex ‘A’ will on today Wednesday render a judgement as to whether Counselor Albert Sims actually tempered with one of the jurors in the ongoing land dispute case between the Intestate Estate of the late Jeda Tor(plaintiff) and Club Beer Factory as defendant.
The ruling is a result of an intense investigation and testimonies of Cllr. Sims and Juror Arnold Gbaboh, the accused and Cllr. Lawrence Tomah and an employee of the court, Madam Evelyn Karyee, the accusers.
If Cllr. Sim is found liable (guilty) he would be recommended before the Grievances and Ethics Committee of the Supreme Court for punishment or suspension of his licence for years. Likewise. Juror Gbaboh, if guilty he could face a prison term of 30-days. The accused is one of several lawyers representing the Club Beer Factory, while Cllr. Tomah represents the estate.
No matter how they do it, people who try to influence jurors are guilty of jury tampering, which carries a harsher punishment under the Liberian criminal justice system.
The jury tampering accusation was reported by Cllr. Tomah and Madam Evelyn Karyee, both of whom have accused Cllr. Sims exchanging contact numbers with Juror Gbaboh. outside of the courtroom, after the case of Action of Summary Proceedings to Recover Possession of Real Property’ against Club Beer Factory had ended on February 4.
Testimonies of Cllr. Tomah and Evelyn Karyee
Cllr. Lawrence Tomah, one of the lawyers for the Estate alleges, said he saw Cllr. Sims and Juror Arnold Gbaboh exchanged contact numbers after the court adjourned the hearing of the main case.
Cllr Tomah told the investigation that the tempering happened immediately after the jury left the courtroom.
In his testimony. Tomah alleges that when walked outside in split seconds, he (Tomah) left his colleagues standing in the courtroom and he walked outside to his dismay and disbelief, he saw Sims and Juror Gbaboh exchanging contact numbers right before the court.
Tomah claims that since he never had his phone with him to take a photograph of the exchanges between Sims and Gbaboh, he had to call Evelyn Karyee, who was seated on the step to the courtroom.
“I called Evelyn’s attention immediately and told her, if she had seen what Cllr. Sims and Juror Gbaboh were doing, they are exchanging numbers and she replied “I am seeing,” according to Tomah, “I immediately came back to the court and informed his colleagues about the incident, which they later reported to this court for an investigation.”
Evelyn Karyee’s testimony supported that of Tomah.
For Evelyn, she explained to the investigation that while she was sitting on the step, Cir. Tomah came and he touched her and he said look, and she looked, and saw Cllr. Sims and Juror Gbaboh standing.
She claimed that she saw Sims in conversation with Gbaboh, and they were talking, and she saw the juror dialing number on his phone.
“And I got down from the step and the juror walked away, and Cllr. Sims also walked away,” she alleged.
Cllr. Sims and Juror Gbaboh’s Testimonies
Cllr. Sims had denied the accusations describing it as, “malicious, wicked and is intended to spoil my character.” “In fact, after the hearing I proceeded to the National Labor Court. I did not have any interaction with anybody, least of all in conversation in which we exchanged contract numbers.”
Sims however told the investigation that he was aware of the gravity of jury tampering.
“For the record, let me say to this court, that I have been in the practice for a little over twenty years, now so, I know the gravity of the offence when it comes to jury tampering, so the allegation by Cllr. Tomah is malicious, wicked and is intended to spoil my character,” Sims told the investigation.
Also, Juror Gbaboh denied the accusations. ” I never interacted with Cllr. Sims, after the case was adjoined, I left the court, I used the left side of the court, got in my vehicle and went to my office to do a report,” the juror told the investigation.
Unfortunately, he explained, the next day, when he came back to the court, he was surprised by one of the counsels for the Plaintiff and the court’s officer to accuse him of talking to Cllr. Sims and taking his number.
“You could request all of my calls log from any of the GSM companies, if I ever communicated with Cllr. Sims and verify it,” Gbaboh challenged the accusation.
The case grew when the Intestate Estate of the late Jeda Tor filed an Action of Summary Proceedings to Recover Possession of Real Property praying, the court to oust, eject,
and evict defendant (Club Beer Factory) from its property they continue to occupy since May 2022 to the disadvantage of plaintiff.
“Levy and institute Compensatory and Punitive Damages against defendant and to further hold them (defendant) liable for illegally occupying and doing business on our property without any
color of right, the fear of God and in total disregard to the rule of law,” the lawsuit argues.
According to the suit, the Estate of the late Jeda Tor, genuine owner of Forty-six Acres of land laying and situated in Bushrod Island, Montserrado County, purchased by the late Jeda Tor, their late father and grandfather.
The lawsuit claims that during the life of the late Jeda Tor, the original owner of the parcel of land, he leased to Monrovia Breweries, Inc., (MBI), 19.695 acres of land on the 22 Day of May, A. D. 1957, to have and to hold the same said parcel of land pending the expiration of the said Agreement of Lease. which was extended by the Jeda Tor Estate on May 22, 2000.
They allege that the said Agreement of Lease has expired since May 22, 2022, and brings to closure the Agreement of Lease signed by the late Jeda Tor and subsequently extended in 2000.
The suit says further that since the expiration of the May 22, 2000 agreement of lease, there
has been no further extension made for which the defendant continue to illegally occupy its
property and continue to do business on the said property to the disadvantage of plaintiff, and the heirs of the late Jeda Tor Estate, “something the late Jeda Tor did not intend would
ever happen that such action would be perpetrated against the estate and its heirs.”
The lawsuit contends that the action of the defendant has caused and continues to cause untold hardship on the estate and its beneficiaries as the estate’s bills cannot be settled including other financial burdens of the Estate.
