The Justice-In-Chamber at the Supreme Court of Liberia allegedly refuses to recuse himself from a land deed case at the Temple of Justice in Monrovia.
By Lincoln G. Peters
Monrovia, October 3, 2024/Supreme Court of Liberia Chamber Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay has allegedly refused to step aside from the late Milad Hage’s fraudulent land deed case involving his window, Oumou, and three of her biological children against one of her stepdaughters, Nohad Hage.
Lawyers representing Oumou had earlier asked Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay to recuse himself from the case because he had rendered judgment when serving as a circuit judge at one of the two Civil Law Courts.
At that time, Justice Gbeisay ordered Oumou to be incarcerated for five days after he held her in contempt for her refusal to sign the contentious deed, which she then described as a fake deed, as it was introduced in the case.
However, Justice Gbeisay got involved with the case when Nohad Hage requested the judge for a writ of certiorari on the judgment of Judge Golda A. Bonah Elliott, who had also refused to recuse herself from hearing the case.
On Tuesday, September 24, 2024, Nohad Hage, one of the daughters of the late Milad Hage’s Estate, lost her latest bid for a new judge in the “Contention of Fraud in Title” allegations brought against her by her sibling as the matter heads toward potential trial.
In a decision on Tuesday, Judge Golda A. Bonah Elliott declined to step aside, describing Nahad’s demand as “being untrue and unsupported by the records and inconsistent with law.”
Nahad had argued that, while the judge was in private practices, as a lawyer to the
Sherman and Sherman law firm, she represented Eco-bank in 2019 in the case: “Nahad Hage by and through her Attorney-In-fact, Edith Hage-Smith Saygeh Vs. Oumou Hage of the City of Monrovia, Liberia 1st Respondent and ECOBANK Liberia Limited by & thru its Managing Director, and all Officers working under its authority, as 2nd Respondent.”
Nadad argues that the case borders on the disputed Milad R. Hage’s properties, in which Bonah Elliott argued that Nohal Hage lacks the capacity/standing to maintain the suit/Bill of Information.
The Bill of Information, according to her, derived from the Supreme
The court’s mandate (contained in its January 2014 ruling) refers to the properties owned by Oumou Sirleaf Hage and her children with Millard R. Hage.
Oumou and her children claim that the serving lawyer representing Eco-bank, Bonah Elliott, during her argument, said that since Nohad is not a child of Oumou, she was without standing to file the Bill of Information.
During the bill of Information argument, they accused the judge that she believed that Nohad had no title and was without standing.
“To be true and correct, even though, as counsel for ECOBANK, you knew or had reasons to know that Nohad’s name was on at least one of the deeds in ECOBANK’s possession,” she argued.
“Bonah Elliott is convinced that it is impossible to get a fair/impartial trial with you presiding as judge, given your views that collateralized properties in possession of Ecobank were those of only Oumou Sirleaf and her children by Milard R. Hage,” owner of properties used by the Milard as Collateral for the loan.
They furthered that she had not been given an opportunity to be heard and that the court had proceeded against her interests.
However, Ecobank maintained that the Bill of Information was to inform the Supreme Court of the wrongful implementation of its mandate and that, not being the contention of the informant, it should be denied.
The bank further contended that the Informant’s claim to own the properties was without its knowledge and information, noting that if the informant’s assertion were true, then the matter should be referred to a circuit court for determination; however, those matters being without the office of the Bill of Information.
The Bill of Information would not have lied.
“This Judge says, nowhere in the pleadings filed on behalf of Ecobank that is the returns and the brief did Sherman and Sherman express any opinion on the deeds presented by Nohad Hage to the Bill of Information, and this fact is clear and consistent throughout the pleading filed before the Supreme Court.
Nadad is requesting myself be recused from the hearing of this case because, in the previous representations of Ecobank Liberia Limited, an opinion was expressed regarding the claims or the deeds presented by Nohad Hage and also because, over an objection of Movant’s Counsel, this court admitted into evidence an instrument that has been previously marked and confirmed by this Court.” Judge Golda A. Bonah Elliott said.
She said it is not disputed that she provided representation for EcoBank Liberia Limited in the matter concerning the Estate of the late Milad Hage, but the said case regards the Estate of Milad Hage’s loan obligations to Ecobnak Liberia Limited.
“It must be stated that Ecobank Liberia Limited and its legal counsels played no role in the hearing and or investigation conducted by the Probate Court, the Commercial Court, the Civil Law Court Judge Konton, and the matter before the Supreme Court,” the judge contended.
According to her, the pleading referred by Nadal was filed before the Supreme Court of Liberia, with Ecobank Liberia Limited named as a Respondent.
“The said Bill of Information, to best of my knowledge, was premised upon a mandate of the Honorable Supreme Court issued to a lower court, where the matter was pending,” she emphasized. Editing by Jonathan Browne
