MONROVIA – The Supreme Court of Liberia has reaffirmed its 2016 judgment ordering the removal of the Congress for Democratic Change (CDC) from a disputed piece of land hosting its headquarters in Monrovia. The Court, in its March Term sitting, dismissed a Bill of Information filed by the CDC and declared the party’s legal strategy to delay its eviction as “preposterous,” “impermissible,” and a “legal charade.”
By Lennart Dodoo & Garmah Lomo
The landmark ruling, read on May 28, 2025, by Associate Justice Jamesetta H. Wolokollie and signed by all five justices of the High Court, paves the way for the CDC to be evicted from the 4.23-acre property it has occupied for years. The Court also imposed a fine of US$500 on CDC’s legal team, to be paid into government revenue within 72 hours.
“Affront to the Court”
“Clearly this bill of information filed by the informant is a legal charade and an affront to the Court which the Court considers impermissible,” the Supreme Court held.
The CDC, represented by its Acting Chairman, Attorney Janga Kowo, filed the Bill of Information in a bid to delay enforcement of the 2016 judgment. The party argued that a pending appeal in a related property dispute involving the intestate estate of Danielle P. Tucker Bernard should be resolved before its eviction. The Court rejected this argument outright, stating that the CDC has no standing in that appeal.
“The informant’s attempt to mitigate its risk to purchase cannot hinge on an appeal in which it is not a party on appeal,” the opinion read. “Even if said appeal is finalized in favor of the intestate estate of Danielle P. Tucker Bernard, this Court says it leaves the informant with no option but to deal with the prevailing party under a new arrangement.”
History of the Dispute
The legal wrangling over the land began when the Intestate Estate of Martha Stubblefield Bernard, represented by administrator Ebrima Varney Dempster, filed an action of ejectment in 2014 against the Intestate Estate of William Thomas Bernard, and the CDC, then a tenant on the property. In 2016, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling ordering the CDC and the 2nd respondent estate evicted.
However, enforcement of the ruling stalled allegedly due to political interference, including the appointment of the estate’s former counsel, Cllr. Frank Musah Dean, as Minister of Justice. It wasn’t until 2024 that the 1st respondent hired new counsel and resumed efforts to enforce the 2016 judgment.
To stave off eviction, CDC entered into negotiations with the Stubblefield Estate to purchase the land. As part of those talks, CDC paid a total of US$360,000 in rental arrears for 2018 to 2023 and also settled court costs. According to the Court, those payments constituted “an implied enforcement” of the judgment and thereby established a landlord-tenant relationship.
“Tenant Cannot Question Title”
“That the 1st respondent’s acceptance of Three Hundred & Sixty Thousand United States Dollars (US$360,000.00) as rental arrears from the informant… was an implied enforcement of the 2016 Judgment of the Supreme Court, and thereby established a landlord-tenant relationship,” the ruling emphasized.
The CDC, having paid the rent, then sought to halt enforcement of the eviction order by citing the pending appeal. But the Supreme Court ruled that a tenant cannot question the title of its landlord.
“That the informant’s filing of a bill of information… is preposterous and impermissible since the informant cannot question the title of its landlord,” the judgment states.
In support of its reasoning, the Court cited legal precedent in Jallah v. Intestate Estate of George S. B. Tulay, Supreme Court Opinion, March Term, A.D. 2013, which held that a tenant cannot dispute the landlord’s title.
Privy to the Losing Party
Justice Wolokollie explained that the CDC was a “privy” to the 2nd respondent—the Estate of William Thomas Bernard—which lost the ejectment case in 2016.
“The contention of the informant is irrelevant as it was in privity with the 2nd respondent,” the opinion declared. The Court quoted Mahmound v. Jolloh et al, 37 LLR 3, defining privity as “a mutual or successive relationship to the same right of property” and stating that such privy parties are bound by court judgments issued against the primary party.
According to the judgment, “Upon recovery of a judgment against a party, all those in privity with said party are bound by same and may be dispossessed of said property.”
No Basis for Bill of Information
The Court noted that the Revised Rules, Part 12 of the Supreme Court, require that a Bill of Information must demonstrate interference with the Court’s mandate by a judge or judicial officer. In this case, the Court found no such claim.
“We do not see in the informant’s bill of information where it alleges that the lower court or the 1st respondent has attempted to interpret the judgment… in an improper manner,” the ruling said.
“If anyone is attempting to obstruct the Judgment of the Supreme Court, it is the informant who by filing this bill of information is attempting to circumvent the ownership of the property.”
Legal Costs and Penalty
As a penalty for the frivolous filing, the Court fined the CDC’s lawyers—Counsellors A. Ndubusi Nwabudike, Thomson M. Jargba, and James N. Kumeh—a total of US$500, payable within 72 hours of the judgment.
“The bill of information filed by the informant having failed to allege interference with the Judgment or Mandate of this Court… the counsel for the informant is hereby fined,” the Court ordered.
End of the Road?
With this decision, the CDC faces imminent removal from a property that has served as one of its operational bases. The Court’s language leaves no ambiguity about the finality of its decision.
“WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the informant’s bill of information is dismissed and denied,” the ruling concludes.
The judgment was signed by Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene G. Yuoh and Associate Justices Jamesetta H. Wolokollie, Yussif D. Kaba, Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay, Sr., and Ceaineh D. Clinton Johnson.
Discussion about this post