Weeks et al v Mayas et al [2009] LRSC 14 (30 January 2009)
Kukor Sieh Weeks, Elijah Weeks and Thomas Weeks, Administrators and Administration of the Intestate of the Late Juah Weeks of the City of Monrovia, Liberia APPELLEES/PETITION VERSUS Marwan A. Mayas, Attorney-In-Fact of Yahya Said Abou Hadir, Mersel Imad for himself and Representative of Marwan A. Mayas and Sarah D. Weeks of the City of Monrovia, Liberia …….. APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS.
BILL IN EQUITY FOR CANCELLATION OF ADDENDUM OF LEASE AGREMEENT. JUDGMENT CONFIIRMED
ARGUED: November 25, 2008 DECIDED: January 30, 2009
MADAM JUSTICE WOLOKOLIE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT
This is the second time that this Court has handled an appeal from a ruling of the lower court on a bill in equity for cancellation of lease involving the heirs, beneficiaries and legatees of the late Juah Weeks and the appellant, for the same lot Number 200 situated on Carey Street, the homestead estate of the late Juah Weeks Previously, the heirs had sued for cancellation of the lease agreement by and between the appellant herein and three other heirs of Juah Weeks Wolo who position themselves as owners of the homestead, leasing the property without the knowledge and consent of other heirs. The lease was cancelled by the court below, and on appeal, the Supreme Court during its March term 1981 upheld the judgment of the court below. Subsequently, in the same 1998, the parties reached an understanding and entered a lease agreement for a certain period of twenty years with renewal of same for an additional twenty years upon terms and conditions to be agreed upon. During the pendency of the certain period of the lease, the original legatees and lessors died with the exception of one daughter, Juah Droh Weeks.
Now before us involving another appeal from a ruling in a cancellation proceeding is an allegation by the appellants that while the 1981 agreement was in operation, a group of grandchildren of those deceased, through their counsel, quietly executed a lease agreement with one Mr. Diab Dayoub, for the optional period of the lease which was to take effect October 1, 2001. The appellants say they were never notified of this arrangement, especially when the optional period of the agreement was expected to commence upon agreeable terms. Subsequently, Sarah Droh Weeks, the sole surviving heir, who was one of those that signed the 1981 agreement, petitioned the Probate Court for letters of administration to administer the intestate estate of Juah Weeks in 2000. Having been granted the letters from the Probate Court, Sarah Droh Weeks executed an addendum of lease on March 10, 2000, with the appellants for an additional period of twenty years in exercise of the optional period. It was at this juncture appellants got to know of the execution of a lease by the grandchildren of the original signatories with Mr. Diab Dayoub in 1996, to take effect in 2001, the end of the leased period. The appellants say further, in order to give effect to the 1996 agreement with Diab Dayoub, and to cancel the lease agreement with appellants, the appellees petitioned the Probate Court to cancel the letters given to Sarah Droh Weeks, appellant’s lessor. In the decree canceling Sarah Droh Weeks letters, the Probate Judge, John Greaves, also revoked retroactively all actions performed by administrator Sarah Droh Weeks. A motion to rescind this ruling of Judge Greaves was filed by the appellants, but before it could be heard, Sarah Droh Weeks, appellants’ lessor, filed a notice of withdrawal without reservation conceding to the judge’s ruling and the request for appointment of new administrators for the estate. We must note here that the appellees had previously attempted to cancel in the Civil Law Court the addendum with appellants, but the Judge ruled that appellees had no capacity to sue and the case was dismissed. The appellees took an appeal from this ruling, but subsequently withdrew the appeal. They later went to the probate court had the Letters of Sarah Droh Weeks cancelled and letters of administration obtained in their names, including Sarah Droh Weeks.
The appellants, furthering their argument, stated that armed with letters of administration granted the appellees on March 20, 2002, the appellees instituted a cancellation proceeding against the appellants in the Civil Law Court for Montserrado County alleging fraud. The appellants’ counsel, by a motion, informed the judge of a pending appeal in the Supreme Court, stating that withdrawal of the appeal of the appellee was not done consistent with law, and requesting that the judge refuse jurisdiction. The judge denied the motion and proceeded to hear the case. He ruled canceling the addendum to the lease by and between the appellants and Sarah Droh Weeks. Being dissatisfied, appellants excepted and announced this appeal.
The appellees, on the other hand, argued before us that declaring rights under the Will of the late Juah Weeks, one of their members, Sarah Droh Weeks, heirs and beneficiaries of the homestead of Juah Weeks estate had clandestinely obtained letters of administration for a homestead property declared intestate by the court for proper management. The fact put forward by these family members, appellees, are that an agreement of lease was entered into by all the beneficiaries of the homestead with one Yahya Said Abou Hadir and Salim Ajaj Gharzeddine in October 1981 for twenty years certain with the right to a twenty year optional period on terms and conditions to be agreed upon by the parties. After the civil crisis, the beneficiaries and legatees, including Sarah Droh Weeks, approached the attorney in fact of lessees to renegotiate the rental amount since the property had been subleased by the appellants for US45.000 per annum and the legatees were only being paid about US$300 a year. This request was rejected by the appellants. Due to the desperate financial need of the appellees after the civil crisis and the need for funds to settle themselves, they instructed their counsel to negotiate the optional period provided under the agreement with appellants. After several discussions, the appellants made an offer ranging from US$2,500 to $4,000 progressively per annum spread over the twenty year optional period. The appellees found the offer unacceptable and requested the appellants to augment the rental amount but appellants failed to react to the position of the Weeks heirs.
Having failed to make a reasonable offer to the appellee, the heirs, including coappellant Sarah Droh Weeks, received an offer from Mr. Diab Dayoub through their lawyer in 1996, which was acceptable and they agreed and entered a ten year lease agreement with Mr. Diab M. Dayoub to commence October 1, 2001, the expiration of the twenty year certain period of the 1981 agreement with the appellants. This agreement with Mr. Diab M. Dayoub yields rent of US$10,000 per annum. Upon the signing of the agreement in 1996, the sum of US$10,000 was paid and another sum of US$10,000 paid at the end of 1997. These amounts represented the first two years rent from 2001 to 2003. A review of this agreement on the court’s file shows that Sarah Droh Weeks, the co-appellant, was the first signatory as lessor to the agreement.
The appellees denied that the appellants got to know of the agreement with Mr. Dayoub in 2000, after their agreement with Sarah Droh Weeks. Instead, appellants got to know of the agreement earlier and upon hearing of the Weeks negotiations with Mr. Diab M. Dayoub, wrote the Weeks family through their lawyer, making an offer for the optional period and volunteering to pay Mr. Dayoub US$23,000 cash down as reimbursement for the money paid to the Weeks. This offer was rejected on the grounds that it was belated since the appellees had already entered an agreement with Mr. Diab M. Dayoub and the agreement had been consummated by benefit already received.
The lessors/appellees in their argument stated further that the appellants having been rejected then proceeded to deal with Sarah Droh Weeks the only original surviving heirs and induced her to go to the Probate Court to obtain letters of administration for the property without the knowledge and consent of other beneficiaries. She fraudulently obtained the letters and then proceeded to enter an addendum of lease agreement as administratrix with the appellants. This agreement by Sarah Droh Weeks and the appellants the appellees state was fraudulent, as Sarah Droh Weeks was a signatory to the agreement between the heirs of Juah Weeks and Diab M. Dayoub. They therefore filed a petition in the Civil Law Court to cancel the addendum based on fraud. Their first action was dismissed for lack of capacity to sue, but they subsequently obtained letters of administration and then filed a bill in equity for the cancellation of the addendum entered into by appellants and Sarah Droh Weeks which case was ruled in appellees favor.
The appellants in their argument before us have stated basically that they were not represented at the trial and that the rulings of the Probate Judge and the Civil Law Court Judge were erroneous.
Since we are convinced by the records in this case that the appellants were adequately informed of proceedings and were represented, the determinative issues are whether the lease agreement with Mr. Diab M. Dayoub by the appellees was obtained fraudulently so as to warrant cancellation by the court below; and whether the Probate Judge’s cancellation of Sarah Droh Weeks letters of administration revoking retroactively all actions performed thereunder are supported by law.
A lessee who has a lease agreement with option on term and conditions has a lien and surety on the certain period only, which terms and conditions have been set. The optional period with terms and conditions to be agreed on is of no binding effect and is just a courtesy clause which encourages both parties to a lease to consider terms for an extension where a party so desire. In Mirza vs. Crusoe l reported in 14LLR 95, 98, (1960), appellant’s late father contracted a lease agreement with the appellees for a piece of property situated on Water Street in the City of Monrovia. The period of lease covered by this contract was twenty years certain with an option for another twenty years on term and condition of the option to be agreed between the contracting parties. Three years before the expiration of the twenty year certain period, the appellees contracted the lease of said premises to one Ameen H. Saad, operative as from the expiration of said term. The appellant consider this subsequence lease to be in violation of the agreement by appellees with her late father and therefore moved for cancellation of the said lease, claiming same to be surreptitious and an attempt to defraud her of her optional right reserve. The appellee resisted the complaint as being without legal merit and void of sufficient grounds to warrant cancellation of the Saad lease, alleging in substance that the optional term reserved in an agreement without consideration is void and does not create an estate in a lessee to such agreement.
Appellant and appellee having joined issue on the merit of the pleadings, the trial judge dismissed the complaint on the ground that: “Plaintiff’s option by the first lease not being enforceable because of uncertainty, he has no estate, nor can he so exercise same in the land, the subject of these proceedings beyond the certain period of this leasehold.” The bill of cancellation was therefore denied
This Supreme Court upheld the judge’s ruling, stating that, “Because of the ineffectiveness and unenforceable nature of a contract providing no conditions under which an option to a lease may be enjoyed by a lessee, the lessee runs the risk of not being able to come to any satisfactory terms with the lessor when the optional period becomes due. Such speculation and risk cannot be recognized as a vested right for a continued occupation of said premises under this uncertain optional clause and against the right of appellee of leasing said premises to a third party at the end of the first twenty years of the contract which carried the conditions under which said first twenty years were to be enjoyed by lessee, appellant herein.”
In the instant case, the appellants having subleased the property for over U$45,000 annually, paying appellees annually rent of about US$300, for appellees to have considered extension of the lease, it was only but fair that an equitable rental amount be offered, especially when the beneficiaries to the property are many. After the negotiation for an equitable rental amount failed, with the reversionary right being interposed immediately at the expiration of the twenty year period, that is September 30, 2001, the lessors properly and legally could choose to negotiate the lease with Mr. Diab Dayoub whom they found was prepared to offer a reasonable rental payment. Appellees action in concluding a lease agreement with Mr. Dayoub beginning October 1, 2001, the expiration of the appellants certain leased period, was legal and is supported by law.
In this matter before us, the records are replete with collusion and deception perpetrated by Sarah Droh Weeks and the appellants. Sarah Droh Weeks was one of those that tried to get the appellants to pay better rent, and when that failed, to negotiate with him payments for the optional period. When that also failed, she and the appellees negotiated through their lawyer a lease agreement with Mr. Diab Dayoub and she was the first to sign the agreement as lessor with Mr. Diab Dayoub; besides, there were numerous requests by Counsellor Cyril Jones, the family counsel, writing to Mr. Dayoub on behalf of Sarah Droh Weeks requesting for advance payment of money against the lease before her subsequently application for letters of administration and her entering an addendum of lease with appellants. Let us read here few of these requests:
April 9, 1997
Mr. Diab Dayoub
Carey Street,Monrovia
Dear Mr. Dayoub:
Our client, Mrs. Sarah Weeks, who is also your landlord, has requested us to appeal to you to please purchase a ticket for her daughter to come from Zaire, and deduct same from the rent due in December, 1997.
We therefore kindly appeal to you to comply with same, and that we join Mrs. Sarah Weeks to commit her to this obligation. In future, should there be any contention about this, please refer to us.
Kind regards,
Very truly yours,
JONES & JONES
Cyril Jones
COUNSELLOR-AT-LAW
May 21, 1997
Mr. Diab Dayoub
Carey Street
Monrovia, Liberia
Dear Mr. Dayoub:
Ms. Ralphlyne Henries, daughter of Sarah Weeks, one of the beneficiaries of the Weeks property on Carey Street, of which you are a lessee, has requested me to also make a request to you for an advanced against the rent due in December of this year.
Since we have agreed that I will make requests in writing on behalf of any of the family members in need of advance payment, I am therefore kindly requesting that you please make available to Ms. Henries the amount of US$200.00 against rental due. Kind regards,
Very truly yours,
JONES & JONES
Cyril Jones, COUNSELLOR-AT-LAW
May 4, 1998
Mr. Diab Dayoub
Carey Street
Monrovia, Liberia
Dear Mr. Dayoub:
One of your Lessors, Mrs. Sarah Weeks, has come to us and complained that her entire house is leaking due to her zincs being damaged She has requested me to kindly write you, asking you to please purchase for her or advance her portion of any future rental due her in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of one bundle of zinc, to repair her house since the rainy reason is already here.
Based on the relationship that exists between us in which you agreed that any of the Weeks family who is in need shall first come to me for covering letter, I hereby request that you kindly assist her with her request.
Kind regards,
Very truly yours,
JONES & JONES Cyril Jones
COUNSELLOR-AT-LAW
After dealing so extensively with Mr. Dayoub through their family lawyer, Sarah Droh Weeks, dishonestly went and obtained letters of administration from the Probate Court so as to enter an addendum to lease agreement with appellant for the same period as her and appellees lease with Mr. Diab Dayoub. Clearly, she knew that her actions were deceptive and that she must have allowed herself to be persuaded by the appellants only to unjustly enrich herself, which has caused an unnecessary legal battle to the disadvantage of other beneficiaries and Mr. Diab Dayoub, this act this Court seriously frowns on.
The appellants have stated in their brief before us and in their argument that they did not know of the transaction of the appellees with Diab Dayoub until after Sarah Weeks had obtained letters of administration and had concluded the addendum to the lease with them extending the lease term for another twenty years. Their brief before us states, “it was at this juncture that appellants became aware of the fact that Jones and Jones had secretly executed a new agreement between few grandchildren of the original signatories to the lease of 1981 …. ”
A review of the records before us shows otherwise. Let us begin with a look at the records on the court’s file beginning with the offer put forward by the appellants through their attorney in fact which was rejected by the appellees:
September — 29- 1996
Dear Counsellor Jones,
Please this is the proposal of a new lease agreement by and between the Weeks family and Mr. Yahya S. Bonhadir.
Period of the new agreement: 20 calendar years certain. The cost of the rental to be following manner.
For the First five years, 2,500.00 ( Two Thousand Five Hundred US Dollars).
For the Second five years, 3,000.00 (Three Thousand US Dollars).
For the Third five years, 3,500.00 (Three Thousand, Five hundred US Dollars).
For the Fourth five years 4,000.00 (Four Thousand US Dollars).
Thanks very much in advance
Marwan a. Hayas
ORIENTAL BAKERY
The appellees say after this proposal was rejected, the appellants failed to put forward another proposal. Subsequently this proposal was sent to them by Mr. Diab Dayoub through their legal counsel:
MEMORANDUM
TO: COUNSELLOR CYRIL JONES JONES AND JONES LAW FIRM
FROM: MR. DIAB DAYOUB / SYRIAN BUSINESSMAN
SUNJECT: LEASING OF THE WEEKS PROPERTY CIVIL SERVICING BUILDING
DATE: OCTOBER 25, 1996
I write to inform you that I have interest in the Weeks Real Estate that is located on Carey Street.
Also I will like to take the property for the period of ten (10) years starting from 2002. And I am willing to pay US$ 10,000.00 (TEN THOUSAND UNITED STATES DOLLARS) for each year.
If this proposal is accepted, I am willing to pay the family two years in advance for the place, beginning from 2001 to 2003 respectively. I will also wish to have option period of five (5) years.
Upon signing of the agreement for the building, I will pay US$10,000.00 for 2001 to 2002, and I will pay the balance of US$ 10,000.00 the following year 1997 for the year 2002 to 2003 respectively. After these payments have been made, I will begin the next payment in the year 2003 according to the Date mention in the agreement.
Breakdown:
For the first 5 years, US$ 10,000.00
For the second 5 years, US$ 11,000.00
I hope and pray that this proposal meet your approval and the Weeks family.
NB: Because of the two buildings I own adjacent to this property, I have decided to rent the Weeks property to have all three of the buildings and to keep the environment clean like the ones I have presently.
After this offer by Mr. Diab Dayoub and acceptance by the appellees, the appellants, apparently learning of their agreement, wrote this to the appellees through their legal counsel:
PROPOSAL FOR A LEASE AGREEMENT
March 19, 1998
The Weeks Family Monrovia Liberia
Dear Sir/Madam: I am please to propose for your consideration, the following stipulations to form the basis of entering into a lease agreement with you (the Weeks Family) for your building located on Carey Street in Down Town, Central Monrovia.
I agree to pay a yearly rental of ELEVEN THOUSAND UNITED STATE DOLLARS (US$ 11,000.00) for the first TEN (10) years of the agreement.
I agree to pay a yearly rental of ELEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED UNITED STATES DOLLARS (US$ 11,500.00) for the second TEN (10) years of the agreement.
I agree to pay to Mr. Dayoub TWENTY THREE THOUSAND UNITED STATES DOLLARS (US$23, 000.00) cash down, representing refund to him for the cancellation of a lease agreement he entered into with the family (Weeks). And the amounts of this payments to him will be deducted from the yearly rental payments during the FIRST (5) YEARS.
I do promise to abide by and adhere to the anticipated resultant lease agreement to be drawn up provided that you the family will create the following enabling conditions:
(a) That you (Weeks Family) will elect one person who will administer the affairs relating to the building and represent the family in negotiation;
(b) And authorize me to make rental payments through your Lawyer’s office.
Kindest regards.
Sincerely yours,
Yaya Abon Haider p/p Mawan A Mayas
A review of the addendum to lease agreement by and between the appellants and Sarah D. Weeks shows that the appellants rental payment is not even the same as proposed above, but identical to that of the agreement by and between the appellees and Mr. Dayoub; that is, US$10,000 annually for the first ten years, with US$10,000 payment to be made upon the signing of the agreement; and US$11,000 annually for the second ten years.
With such overwhelming evidence, this court has no doubt that fraud was perpetrated by the appellants with Sarah Droh Weeks to deprive appellees’ lessor, Mr. Diab Dayoub, from entering and exercising control over the property. In the case, Harmon vs. Republic of Liberia, 24LLR 176, 185, (1975), this Court held that, “It is generally accepted that that the validity of a deed is affected by the existence of fraud or deception in its procurement or by deception practice or fraudulently inducement held out to gain title.” This principle clearly applies to this matter before us though it does not involve the fraudulent granting of deed but of a lease agreement.
Evidence from the record brought before us clearly shows that there was a collusion between the appellants and a beneficiary of the estate, Sarah Droh Weeks, in entering an agreement for lease when they were aware that a lease had already been entered into with Mr. Dayoub by appellees including Sarah Droh Weeks one of the appellants. This court has held that collusion, double conveyance and fraud are sufficient bases for canceling a lease. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, R.L vs. Jarbo Sartee, 41LLR 285, 293, (2002).
One of the appellants’ bill of exceptions was that Judge Greaves of the Probate Court in his ruling revoking Sarah Weeks letters of administration stated that all actions done by her based on the letters of administration given to her were illegal. The appellants cited this provision of the Decedent Estates Law:
“..Except as provided in section 107.15, the suspension, modification or revocation does not affect the validity of an act within the powers of the fiduciary done by him before the suspension, modification or revocation of his letters or the service of process where the other party acted in “good faith” (emphasis ours). Decedent Estates Law Section 107.14.
With what has been enumerated above, there is no better showing of bad faith as in this case. Good faith has been defined in BLACK’s LAW DICTIONARY as “… an intangible and abstract quality with no technical meaning or statutory definition and it encompasses, among other things an honest belief, the absence of malice and the absence of design to defraud or to seek an unconscionable advantage, and an individual’s personal good faith is concept of his own mind and inner spirit, and therefore, may not be conclusively determine by his protestation alone.” 5 th Edition (1979).
Can one be said to have acted in good faith when she has entered an agreement with another for a subject property for a certain period and received consideration therefor, and subsequently entered an agreement with another for the same property and for the same period? Thank God Sarah Droh Weeks even showed some prick of conscience when she filed before the Probate Court a “Notice of Withdrawal” and a “LETTER OF CONFIRMATION” as follows:
REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA, MONTSERRADO COUNTY
IN THE MONTHLY AND PROBATE COURT FOR MONTSERRADO COUNTY, SITTING IN ITS AUGUST TERM, A.D. 2002
BEFORE HIS HONOUR: JOHN L. GREAVES, Probate Judge, Mont. Co, RL
Sarah Droh Weeks, of the City of Monrovia Montserrado County … … …INFORMANT
VERSUS Mary Monah Weeks, represented by Kukor Sieh Weeks, Patrick N Weeks, of the City of Monrovia… …… ….RESPONDENTS BILL OF INFORMATION.
GROWING OUT OF THE CASE:
Sarah Droh Weeks, of the City of Monrovia, Montserrado County… …… ……MOVANT VERSUS Mary Monah Weeks, represented by Kukor Sieh Weeks, Patrick N Weeks, of the City of Monrovia, RESPONDENTS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGEMENT.
GROWING OUT OF THE CASE:
Mary Monah Weeks, represented by Kukor Sieh Weeks, Patrick N Weeks, of the City of Monrovia, Montserrado County… ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS Sarah Droh Weeks, of the City of Monrovia, RESPONDENT. PETITION FOR REVOCATION OF LETTER.
GROWING OUR OF THE CASE:
THE PETITION OF SARAH D. WEEKS FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION TO ADMINISTER THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE JUAH WEEKS.
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL
The Clerk Monthly & Probate Court Montserrado County
Temple of Justice Monrovia, Liberia
Mr. Clerk:
You will please take Judicial Notice and spread upon the records of this Honourable Court that the Movant, Sarah Droh Weeks, in the above entitled cause of Action has by this Irrevocable Notice withdrawn her Motion for Relief Judgment and all other subsequent Notices and Pleading filed in this Honourable Court after January 26, 2002 without reservation.
I hereby accept the ruling of this Honourable Court of January 26, 2002 in the above entitled cause and confirm that the Weeks family has reached an understanding whereby Kukor Sieah, Thomas Weeks, Elijah Weeks, Odella Weeks, Nora Weeks and the undersigned, Sarah D. Weeks, as heads of the Coparceners, will request this Honourable Court for an Authority to administer the Homestead of the late Juah Weeks, located on Carey Street, Monrovia, owing to the expansion of the Weeks Family.
This instrument is made in good faith and with total and complete understanding of all the ramifications appertaining thereto and that it was made without any intimidation, force, extra promise, inducement and/or coercion on me, but that I have voluntarily signed this instrument with the full and complete understanding of the same.
FOR SO DOING, THIS SHALL CONSTITUTE YOUR SUFFICIEIVT AUTHORITY!!!
Dated this 1st day of August, A.D. 2002.
Respec tfully submitted,
THE ABOVE NAMED INFORMANT/ MOVANT/RESPONDENT SARAH DROH WEEKS
ATTESTATION:
His Honour John L. Greaves PROBATE COURT JUDGE, MONT.CO.RL
IN THE OFFICE OF THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE FOR THE MONTSERRADO COUNTY, LIBERIA
IN RE: THE ESTATE OF THE LATE JUAH WEEKS
AFFIDAVIT OF CONFIRMATION OF LEASE AGREEMENT
PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME, The undersigned, a duly qualified Justice of the Peace for Montserrado County, at my office in the city of Monrovia, Montserrado County, Sarah Droh Weeks, Kukor Sieah Weeks, Elijah Weeks and Thomas Weeks, and being sworn, depose and say:
1) That they are Sarah Droh Weeks, Kukor Sieah Weeks, Elijah Weeks and Thomas Weeks, heirs, legatees, Administratrices and Administrators Cum Testament Annex and legal representatives and heads of the various coparcener families of the Estate of the late Juah Weeks.
2) That they are the owners of Lot No. 200, located and lying on Carey Street, Monrovia, which premises were handed to them by their late Aunty, Juah Weeks, and presently houses the Civil services Agency.
3) That as heads and legal representatives of the coparcener families of the Estate of the late Juah Weeks, they hereby confirm and affirm that the Weeks families have a valid lease agreement made and entered into on the 6th day of December, A.D. 1996 by and between the heirs and legates of the Juah Weeks and Mr. Diab M Dayoub, which Lease Agreement was duly probated on the 11 th day of December, A.D. 1996 and registered according to Law in Volume 16-96 at pages 68 — 73, to become effective as of October 1, 2001.
4) That by virtue of said Lease Agreement recognized by the heirs and legatees of the late Juah Weeks, it is their desire that the premises known as Lot No. 200, Monrovia, together with all appurtenances thereto belonging, be turned over to, possessed and enjoyed by Mr. Diab M Dayoub in accordance with the lease agreement of December 6, 1996.
5) That the facts stated herein are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, and as to those matters of other information, they verily believe them to be true and correct.
SWORN and SUBSCRIBED TO BEFORE ME, This 29th Day of August„ A.D. 2002.
Atletha Simpson
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE MONTCO, RL
SARAH DROH WEEKS ….Deponent
KUKOR SIEAH WEEKS… Deponent
In consonance with this information to the Probate Court, Sarah Droh Weeks did not appear to testify on the appellants behalf in the Civil Law Court during its hearing into the matter in 2006. Obviously she had nothing earnestly to testify to on appellants behalf and with all the evidence adduced during trial, some of which has been enumerated in this opinion, we would have been surprised if the court had found otherwise and did not rule in favor of the appellees canceling the agreement of lease dated March 10, 1996, by and between appellants and Sarah Droh Weeks as administratrix of the late Juah Weeks.
WHEREFORE, in view of the all the laws cited and relied upon as well as the facts presented during trial, this Court holds that the judgment of the court below was in conformity with the law and the preponderance of evidence adduced at trial, and said judgment is hereby confirm and affirm. AND IT IS HEREBY SO ORDERED.