Published: February 18, 2026
The Supreme Court of Liberia has affirmed a lower court judgment in an ejectment case involving disputed property in Paynesville, ruling in favor of the Intestate Estate of the late Saye Sippi and reducing the damages award to US$75,000.
The decision, from the Court’s October Term A.D. 2025 and decided Feb. 13, 2026, was delivered by Associate Justice Yussif D. Kaba and joined by Chief Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay Sr. and Associate Justices Jamesetta Howard Wolokollie, Ceaineh D. Clinton-Johnson and Boakai N. Kanneh.
The case arose from an action of ejectment filed by the Estate’s administratrices against several defendants, including Representative Yekeh Kolubah, Dejoe George, Laura Kiekpo, Caroline Frozen Food Branch 02 and Ricky Greigre. The Estate alleged the defendants were “illegally and wrongfully occupying and conducting construction” on its property without lawful authority.
Fraudulent Deed Allegations
Central to the dispute was a deed purportedly issued in 2002 and 2004, which the appellants relied upon to claim ownership and lease the property.
According to the Court’s opinion, the Estate presented evidence that “the deed relied upon by the co-appellants Philip Kiekpo and Laura Kiekpo to convey title to co-appellant Greigre was a product of fraud.”
Witnesses testified the Estate never sold the disputed property to Philip Kiekpo and that the signatures appearing on the deed and related receipt were not authentic.
One administrator told the trial court the signatures “purporting to be his on the deed and the cash receipt were not his.”
Another witness testified Philip Kiekpo continued requesting to purchase the same property years after the alleged sale — a fact the Estate argued undermined the authenticity of the transaction.
The jury in the Sixth Judicial Circuit Civil Law Court for Montserrado County returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Estate. The trial judge upheld the verdict and ordered the defendants ejected from the property.
Supreme Court Upholds Jury Verdict
On appeal, the Supreme Court declined to disturb the jury’s findings.
“It is settled law in this jurisdiction that the jury is the exclusive judge of the evidence and the exclusive judge of what constitutes the preponderance of the evidence,” the Court stated, adding such findings should not be overturned unless “manifestly against the weight of the evidence.”
The Court concluded the evidence presented at trial was “clear, cogent and convincing” and fully supported the determination that the deed was fraudulent.
Damages Reduced and Recharacterized
While affirming the ejectment ruling, the Supreme Court modified the damages award. The trial court had granted US$100,000 in special damages, but the justices held special damages must be specifically pleaded and proven.
“The law requires that special damages be specifically pleaded and proved at trial by a preponderance of the evidence,” the Court wrote.
The Court found the Estate failed to establish specific monetary losses beyond wrongful withholding of its property.
However, the justices ruled the defendants’ conduct warranted general and punitive damages. The opinion described the actions of Philip Kiekpo as “reckless, wanton and willful,” noting he “illegally and intentionally took the appellee’s property over the appellee’s objection” and transferred it to another party who then leased it onward.
Accordingly, the Court reduced the award and ordered payment of US$75,000 in general and punitive damages.
New Trial Properly Denied
The appellants also challenged the trial court’s refusal to grant a new trial. The Supreme Court rejected the argument, emphasizing that granting or denying a new trial lies within the trial court’s sound discretion.
Because “the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict,” the justices held the trial judge “rightfully exercised his discretion” in denying the motion.
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling as modified and directed the Clerk to issue a mandate instructing the trial court to resume jurisdiction and enforce the judgment. Costs were assessed against the appellants.
“AND IT IS HEREBY SO ORDERED,” the Court declared in its judgment issued Feb. 13, 2026.
Discussion about this post