Judge Golda A. Bonah Elliott denied Nohad’s request for her recusal, stating that the claim was “untrue, unsupported by the records, and inconsistent with the law.”
Monrovia – Nohad Hage, one of the daughters of the late Milad Hage, has lost her latest bid to remove the judge overseeing the “Contention of Fraud in Title” case brought against her by her sibling. The case, which is moving closer to trial, involves allegations surrounding property ownership.
By: Victoria G Wesseh
On Tuesday, Judge Golda A. Bonah Elliott denied Nohad’s request for her recusal, stating that the claim was “untrue, unsupported by the records, and inconsistent with the law.”
Nohad argued that Judge Bonah Elliott, while working as a lawyer with the Sherman & Sherman law firm, had represented Ecobank Liberia in 2019 in a case involving disputed properties of Milad Hage. In that case, titled Nohad Hage by and through her Attorney-In-fact, Edith Hage-Smith Saygeh vs. Oumou Hage and Ecobank Liberia, Judge Elliott had argued that Nohad lacked standing to bring a Bill of Information concerning the properties.
Nohad contended that, during her representation of Ecobank, Judge Elliott argued that because Nohad was not a child of Oumou Sirleaf Hage, she did not have the legal standing to claim the properties used as collateral for loans. Nohad claimed that at least one of the property deeds in Ecobank’s possession included her name, and she believes this past involvement compromises Judge Elliott’s impartiality in the current case.
In her ruling, Judge Elliott dismissed these concerns, stating, “There is no record or evidence to support Nohad Hage’s claim that Sherman & Sherman expressed any opinion regarding the deeds in question during the prior proceedings. Additionally, the court’s previous rulings were consistent throughout the pleadings filed before the Supreme Court.”
Nohad’s request for recusal was based on her belief that Judge Elliott’s past arguments in favor of Ecobank created a bias against her. However, Judge Elliott maintained that her involvement as Ecobank’s counsel was strictly related to the bank’s interests concerning loan collateral and had no bearing on the current case.
She said it is undisputed that she provided legal representation to Ecobank Liberia Limited in the matter concerning the Estate of the late Milad Hage, but this representation was strictly related to Milad Hage’s loan obligations to Ecobank. Neither Ecobank nor its legal counsels were involved in the hearings or investigations conducted by the Probate Court, the Commercial Court, or the Civil Law Court,” Judge Elliott said.
Ecobank had argued during the prior proceedings that the Bill of Information was not a proper remedy for Nohad’s claims of ownership and that such issues should be addressed by a lower court. The bank further contended that it had no knowledge of Nohad’s alleged ownership of the properties used as collateral.
Judge Elliott concluded that there was no legal basis for her recusal and that the matter would proceed under her supervision. The case, centered on allegations of fraud and disputed ownership of Milad Hage’s estate, now moves closer to a potential trial.
