THE NATIONAL PORT AUTHORITY (NPA), represented by its Managing Director, ELSIE DOSSEN BADIO, Informant, v. THE EXECUTIVE AND WORKING COMMITTEE OF THE SIX CONSOLIDATED GROUPS OF RETIREES AND COMPULSORY LEAVE EMPLOYEES OF THE NATIONAL PORT AUTHORITY, HIS HONOUR JOSEPH W. ANDREWS, Assigned Circuit Judge Presiding over the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court, Montserrado County, Sitting in its December and March Terms, 1998 and 1999, respectively, et al., Respondents.

BILL OF INFORMATION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY.

Heard: November 24, 1999 Decided: December 16, 1999

1. Whenever a trial judge or a judicial officer is improperly executing a mandate of the Supreme Court, the aggrieved party may have such conduct reviewed through a bill of information proceeding and the Supreme Court shall compel compliance with its mandate.

2. Trial judges should follow strictly both in the spirit as well as in the letter all opinions given by the Supreme Court, as one of the most potent means of unifying the practice.

3. Any trial judge or judicial officer, who proceeds to improperly execute the mandate of the Supreme Court, runs the risk of being attached in contempt of the Supreme Court.

Informant, the National Port Authority, brought a bill of information proceeding against the presiding judge of the Civil Law Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit and the Executive and Working Committee of the Six Consolidated Groups of Retirees and Compulsory Employees of the National Port Authority, respondents, complaining that the mandate of the Supreme Court was being improperly executed. In that mandate, the Supreme Court had acknowledged that an earlier ruling by the trial court had relieved informant of any responsibility for the ALICO pension fund and appointed a special administrator to pay the employees whatever amount each was entitled to from the ALICO pension fund. After that ruling by the trial court and after the special administrator had embarked on his tasks, the co-respondents brought a second declaratory judgment proceeding, which was dismissed by the trial court and the dismissal affirmed by the Supreme Court for reason of res judicata and judicial estoppel. In rendering this judgment, the Supreme Court ordered that the trial court have the special administrator conclude the payments to the employees and that a record of all disbursements and a full report submitted to the Supreme Court.

In enforcing this mandate, instead of the trial court, which had appointed the special administrator, getting the special administrator to complete the payments and prepare the report for submission to the Supreme Court, the trial court ordered that the National Port Authority must present all records of the ALICO pension funds and prepare a report of all disbursements. From this order of the trial court, informant brought the bill of information.

The Supreme Court agreed that bill of information is the proper procedure to bring to the attention of the Supreme Court the improper execution of its mandate. The Supreme Court also ruled that its mandate was being improperly executed and confirmed that informant had been relieved of all responsibilities and liabilities in respect of the ALICO pension funds. The Supreme Court then reiterated its mandate and said that it is the special administrator, under the supervision of the trial court, who must complete the payments to the employees, make a report of all disbursements, and have that report submitted to the Supreme Court. Accordingly the bill of information was granted

Osborne K Diggs appeared for Informant. Henry B. Baker and Joseph H Constance appeared for Respondents.

MR. JUSTICE SACKOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

This information proceeding grows out of the mandate of this Court during its October Term A.D. 1998, ordering the judge presiding in the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court for Montserrado County to give effect to the opinion and judgment of this Court and, that the matter of the refund of ALICO funds be proceeded with, concluded and a final report presented to this Court. The Court, in its opinion and judgment, confirmed the ruling of the trial court granting the motion to dismiss the second petition for declaratory judgment on the principles of res judicata and judicial estoppel. The trial court resumed jurisdiction upon the mandate of this Court to proceed and conclude the matter of ALICO refund, but granted the submission of co-respondents, the Executive and Working Committee of the Six Consolidated Groups of Retirees and Compulsory Employees of the National Port Authority, on August 6, 1999 ordering the management of National Port Authority (NPA) to submit to the trial court within thirty days as of its ruling a full report of all collections under the ALICO pension fund, all disbursements and the balance, if any. It is this ruling of the trial judge, His Honour Yousif D. Kaba, Assigned Circuit Judge, which prompted this information proceeding before this Court.

The National Port Authority (NPA), informant in this information proceeding, contended that in the first declaratory judgment proceeding, the trial court had excluded NPA from the disbursement of the ALICO funds and ordered the disbursement of said ALICO funds through a committee appointed by said trial court. The informant also contended that the mandate of this Court to the trial court to proceed and conclude the matter of the refund of the ALICO funds means that the trial court, by and through the Hitler Richards and Company, which was appointed by the trial court to make the disbursement under the first declaratory judgment proceeding, should proceed to disburse the balance ALICO funds out of the US$1,500,193.00 plus L$977,188.00 that was made available by ALICO and kept in escrow at the ITC Bank, in keeping with the final judgment of His Honour Hall W. Badio, Sr. on July 27, 1995. The informant further maintained that the mandate of this Court requires that the employees and former employees of the National Port Authority (NPA) who have not been paid should be paid and a report be submitted to this Court as to the manner of payment. It is the argument of the informant that the mandate of this Court does not require the trial court to review the judgment of this Court by reopening this case or creating a new matter, which is not before the trial court. Thus, informant strongly argued that the trial court had no authority to review the second declaratory judgment case involving the amounts of US$7,249,052.00 and L$640,000.00 that was put to rest on December 4, 1998 by the opinion and judgment of this Court during its October Term A.D. 1998, confirming the ruling of Her Honour C. Aimesa Reeves rendered on December 22, 1997 during the December Term, A. D. 1997 of the trial court.

Based on the above contentions and arguments, informant prayed this Honourable Court to grant its bill of information complaining about the trial court’s disregard of this Court mandate.

The co-respondent argued before this Court that the trial court was under a duty to order an accounting by informant on the ground that absent such order, the trial court would not be in the position to carry out this Court’s mandate of December 4, 1998. They also contended that the language employed by this Court in its order to the trial court clearly directs that a full accounting of the ALICO pension fund be made setting out the status of said fund and a final report forwarded to this Court by the trial court. Co-respondents vehemently argued that the order of the trial court to informant to submit a full report of all collections under the ALICO pension fund together with all disbursements and the balance is an enforcement of this Court’s mandate and is in conformity with the views and orders expressed therein, but not a review thereof. The Co-respondents further argued that the trial judge used his discretion in carrying out the mandate of this Court consistent with this Court’s opinion and judgment on the ground that the precise manner by which the ALICO refund matter was to be proceeded with was not expressly defined by this Court.

Based on the foregoing, co-respondents prayed this Court to deny informant’s bill of information and to confirm the trial judge’s ruling of August 6, 1999.

The facts and circumstances in this case present one decisive question, which is:

Whether or not the trial court improperly executed this Court’s mandate of December 4, 1998 for which information should be granted.

A recourse to the records in this case shows that the trial court, during its June Term A. D. 1995 presided over by His Honour Hall W. Badio, Sr., rendered a ruling on July 27, 1995 on a bill of information proceeding filed by the management of NPA against the co-respondents herein. This bill of information grew out of declaratory judgment proceeding filed by the co-respondents herein, as petitioners therein, against the informant herein, as respondent therein. There was no appeal taken from this ruling on the bill of information.

The trial court appointed the Hitler Richards and Company as special administrator for the express purpose of reviewing and auditing the reports and records of the ALICO pension funds. The special administrator was required to prepare a complete and comprehensive report to the trial court upon receipt of all records and report from the informant herein.

We observe from the records that informant made available all relevant documents pertaining to the administration of the ALICO pension funds to the special administrator, whereupon the disbursements of the pension funds by the trial court, along with the special administrator, commenced.

Hitler Richards and Company, the court-appointed special administrator of the ALICO pension fund, and the Consolidated Six Groups of Retirees and Compulsory Leave Employees of the National Port Authority (co-respondents herein) petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari against His Honor Sebron J. Hall and the board of directors and management of the National Port Authority (informant herein). The petition was granted on the rh day of October A.D. 1998 by Mr. Justice Sackor presiding in Chambers during the October Term of this Court. In his ruling, Mr. Justice Sackor confirmed the ruling of His Honor Hall W. Badio, Sr. terminating informant’s agency and discharging informant from further liability on the ALICO pension funds, which had been disbursed by the trial court upon the findings of the special administrator appointed by the trial court. The ruling of His Honour Hall Badio, appointing Hitler Richards and Company as special administrator of the ALICO pension funds, defining the special administrator’s terms of reference, and upon which ruling the payments of the pension funds commenced, was also affirmed by Mr. Justice Sackor. The ruling of Judge Sebron Hall reviewing and amending the ruling of His Honour Hall W. Badio, both of whom hold and exercise concurrent jurisdiction, was reversed.

There was no appeal taken from this ruling of Mr. Justice Sackor on the certiorari proceeding. It is therefore binding on the petitioners in said certiorari proceeding, who are also corespondents in this information proceeding.

Madam Chief Justice Scott, speaking for this Court in its December 4, 1998 Opinion of this Court, said in part, as follows:

“Finally the Presiding Chamber Justice confirmed the ruling of Judge Badio’s on a bill of information terminating the agency of NPA. And further, no appeal was taken from the decision of the Chambers Justice on the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, hence the facts as stated are deemed correct by this Court and the determinations made therein are binding on and effective against all of the parties therein.”

The above quoted portion of this Court’s opinion of December 4, 1998 in this case clearly and plainly confirmed the termination of informant’s agency as well as the discharge of informant from further liability on the ALICO pension funds.

This Court held in several opinions that “trial judges should follow strictly both in the spirit as well as in the letter all opinions given by this Court, as one of the most potent means of unifying the practice.” Barnes et al. v. Republic[1937] LRSC 8; , 5 LLR 395 (1937); Richards v. McGill, et al.[1937] LRSC 24; , 6 LLR 81, 85 (1937).

We, therefore, perceive no difficulty in the enforcement of this Court’s mandate when the language of its opinion of December 4, 1998 in this case is very, clear, confirming the termination of informant’s agency as well as its discharge from further liability for the ALICO pension fund. We are therefore taken aback by the trial judge’s granting of a submission on the 6th day of August, A. D. 1999, when he ordered informant to submit a full report of all collections of the ALICO pension fund, all disbursements and the balance, if any, to said trial court within thirty days in an attempt to enforce this Court’s mandate. This Court simply mandated the trial court, by and through Hitler Richards and Company as special administrator of the ALICO pension fund, to proceed to disburse the balance ALICO pension fund out of the US$1,500,193.00 plus L$977,188.00 that was made available by ALICO and kept in escrow at the ITC Bank as per the ruling of His Honour Hall W. Badio in 1995, and that those who have not been paid through the court-appointed special administrator should be paid and a report of such payments be submitted to this Court as to the manner of payment. The trial court was never mandated to acquire from informant any further records and reports of the ALICO pension fund and the disbursement thereof, as informant’s agency had been terminated and further informant had been discharged from liability for the pension fund.

It should be recalled that informant never supervised the disbursement of the ALICO pension fund, as shown by the records before us in this case. It is evident by the records that the special administrator appointed by the trial court on July 27, 1995 disbursed the ALICO pension fund under the supervision of the trial court; and therefore informant can not be required to account for the administration and disbursements of such fund before the trial court for purposes of making a report to this Court as to the manner of payment.

The trial judge therefore executed the mandate of this Court in an improper manner when he entertained and granted a submission ordering informant, whose agency had been terminated and who had been discharged from liability, to submit a report regarding the matter of the ALICO pension fund. The act and conduct of the trial judge enforcing the mandate of this Court in an improper manner is highly contemptuous. However, we purge him of contempt but strongly warn judges of our subordinate courts to adhere strictly to the opinions and mandates of this Court to their spirit and letter.

The next question is whether information can be granted by this Court considering the facts and circumstances in this case.

It is an elementary principle of law, procedure and practice in our jurisdiction that bill of information is the proper remedy to seek the aid of this Court for the enforcement of its mandate where it is shown that the trial judge or judicial official executed the mandate of this Court in an improper manner and inconsistent with its terms. Massaquoi-Fahnbulleh et al. v. Urey[1977] LRSC 5; ,25 LLR 432 (1977)

Wherefore, and in view of the foregoing, it is the considered opinion of this Court that the informant’s information should be, and the same is hereby granted and the ruling of the trial court of August 6, 1999 is hereby reversed. The Clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to send a mandate to the court below informing the judge presiding therein to proceed with the matter of the ALICO pension fund with specific instruction that Hitler Richards and Company, special administrator of the ALICO pension fund, should report to the trial court all relevant records pertaining to the administration and the disbursement of the ALICO pension fund through the ITC Bank, and that all those employees and retirees who have not been paid should be paid and a report be submitted to this Court as to the manner of disbursement of the fund. Costs disallowed. And it is hereby so ordered.

Information granted.