Published: July 16, 2025
MONROVIA – After years of legal maneuvering and a recent Writ of Execution from the Commercial Court of Liberia, Mutual Benefits Assurance Company (MBAC) is now appealing for a negotiated settlement with Bea Mountain Mining Corporation (BMMC) over an $11 million judgment for breach of contract.
MBAC’s move comes after the court reaffirmed its 2022 ruling in favor of BMMC, which sued the insurance firm for failing to honor financial obligations under four bond instruments issued to guarantee contractual agreements. The court ordered MBAC to pay $9,847,604.28 plus additional interest, bringing the judgment total to more than $11 million.
Despite earlier appeals, MBAC has not fulfilled the court’s mandate, prompting critics to accuse the company of stalling through legal technicalities and delaying tactics.
Court Orders Escrow Account—Company Fails to Pay
Following the April 2022 judgment, MBAC filed a Bill of Exceptions and was instructed to deposit the judgment amount into an escrow account opened at Guaranty Trust Bank. However, the company failed to comply, choosing instead to file a petition for a writ of prohibition before the Chambers Justice—then Associate Justice and now Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene G. Yuoh.
Though the alternative writ was initially granted, Justice Yuoh later quashed it after hearing arguments. MBAC then appealed to the full bench of the Supreme Court, which issued a final opinion on January 25, 2023. In that opinion, delivered by Justice Joseph Nagbe, the Supreme Court ruled that MBAC could not substitute its appeal with a petition for prohibition after initiating the appeal process and failing to complete it.
“The appellant cannot abort the appeal process and substitute it with an application for a writ of prohibition,” the court stated, affirming that MBAC must proceed “nunc pro tunc”—Latin for “now for then”—to perfect its appeal and honor the trial court’s judgment.
Following that ruling, the Supreme Court instructed the Commercial Court to resume jurisdiction and enforce the judgment. Yet, MBAC has still not deposited the required funds.
Settlement Letter Emerges
Despite its prolonged resistance, a letter dated July 12, 2025, and signed by MBAC’s legal counsel, Cllr. Aloysius Teah Jappah, shows the company now seeking an out-of-court resolution.
“I write on behalf of Mutual Benefits Assurance Company to confirm our continued commitment to an amicable resolution of the matters presently in dispute between our institutions,” the letter reads. “In line with public policy favoring negotiated settlements, Mutual has authorized its designated Board members and senior management to join legal counsel in the next phase of discussions.”
The communication, which was reviewed by The Liberian Investigator, signals a potential softening of MBAC’s stance as public scrutiny and judicial pressure mount.
However, critics say the move appears to be a double standard—seeking leniency after repeated attempts to defy court mandates and avoid payment obligations.
Supreme Court Mandate Undermined?
Legal observers argue that MBAC’s repeated delays—including a second petition for prohibition filed before current Chambers Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay—undermine judicial authority and risk public distrust in the court’s enforcement mechanisms.
“This is not the first time MBAC has resisted execution,” one court officer said, referencing a 2023 standoff when the company locked its premises and blocked court officials from enforcing a writ issued by Judge Eva Mappy Morgan.
The recent writ of execution—signed by Judge Chan-Chan A. Paegar—follows multiple failed attempts to compel compliance. Legal experts say the company’s tactics amount to bad faith litigation and have accused MBAC of attempting to subjugate the full bench’s judgment to previous chamber rulings already resolved by the court.
Legal Experts Warn of Precedent
Appellee attorneys argue that MBAC’s Bill of Information, filed after the Supreme Court’s final judgment, is yet another tactic to delay payment. They contend that the move is not only contrary to judicial protocol but also risks placing the Supreme Court in public disrepute.
“The Informant has failed to present any valid ground showing that the lower court violated the Supreme Court’s judgment of January 25, 2023,” the response reads. “The bill of information is an attempt to override a full bench decision and reargue issues already settled by the Court.”
Legal analysts warn that if left unchecked, MBAC’s behavior could set a dangerous precedent for other litigants seeking to defy enforceable court rulings through procedural diversions.
Discussion about this post