BOIMA LARSANNAH, CAYMA LARSANNAH, et. al., Petitioners/Informants, v. HER HONOUR EMMA SHANNON-WALSER, Assigned Circuit Judge, September Term, A. D. 1978, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, et al., Respondents.

INFORMATION PROCEEDINGS AND PETITION FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION

Heard: April 27, 1982. Decided: July 9, 1982.

1. No action can lie in personam against a trial Judge for operations and functions of the court over which he presides.

2. A writ of prohibition directed against the exercise of the functions of a judge, is against the trial judge and the court over which he/she presides.

3. No single Justice can interfere with or impede the execution of a mandate of the Full Bench.

Petitioners/informants filed a bill of information to the Supreme Court, alleging that their names have been added as parties on the writ of execution growing out of a mandate of the Supreme Court when they were not parties to the case. Subsequently, petitioners/informants also applied to the Justice in Chambers for a writ of prohibition against the enforcement of the mandate of the Supreme Court. The alternative writ was ordered issued and served. The Supreme Court ordered the information and the prohibition consolidated for hearing. At the call of this case, Counselor Joseph Findley appeared for petitioners/ informants and informed the Court that counsel for both parties had conceded that the petitioners/informants were not parties to either of the cases and that they should not have been included in the writ of possession out which the prohibition grew. Hence, they were improperly added. Counsel for respondents conceded the point raised in the submission but contended that the writ of prohibition was illegally issued by the Chambers Justice.

The Supreme Court granted the information but denied the prohibition on grounds that it was improperly issued, for no single Justice can interfere with or impede the execution of a mandate of the Full Bench.

Joseph P.H. Findley appeared for petitioners/informants. John A. Dennis appeared for respondents.

MR. JUSTICE MABANDE delivered the opinion of the Court.

These controversies now pending before us arose out of the enforcement of a mandate of this Court during which the trial judge is reported to have included the names of petitioners/ informants in the writ of execution as parties.

At the request of counsel for both parties and because the cases present common questions of law and fact, we have consolidated the bill of information and the petition for prohibition for a complete consideration of the cases.

At the call of this case, Counselor Joseph Findley appeared for petitioners/informants and informed the Court that both counsel for the litigants had conceded that the petitioners/ informants were not parties to either of the cases for them to have been included in the writ of possession out of which the prohibition grew.

Counsel for respondents conceded to this submission but he contended that the writ of prohibition was illegally issued by the Chambers Justice. To this issue, counsel for petitioners/ informants contended that the issuance of the writ of prohibition was to stop the trial judge from exceeding her jurisdiction by including petitioners as party defendants in a case to which they were never parties.

As much as this case could have been decided by a judgment without opinion, however, we cannot do so as the opposing parties have joined issues. The issues therefore presented by these controversies are: (1) whether a writ of prohibition can lie personally against a trial judge without affecting the court itself? (2) whether the issuance of a writ of prohibition by a single Justice against the enforcement of a mandate of the Supreme Court is legal? and (3) whether information lies against a trial judge who acts contrary to a mandate of this Court?

The position and function of a trial judge is to superintend the operation and functions of the trial court. No action can lie against him in personam. Every function of a judge in the exercise of his duty for the effective functioning of the court is exclusively an act of court. We therefore hold that any writ of prohibition directed against the exercise of the functions of a judge is against the court itself. The petition for prohibition and the writ of prohibition issued were directly against the trial judge and the court over which she presided. It prohibited every future presiding judge from exercising the functions prohibited.

Where a matter is pending before this Court or where an issue or a case has been disposed of partly or entirely by this Court, an act of a single Justice which interferes with that function of the Full Bench is vocative of the limited functions of a single Justice. It encroaches upon the functions of the Full Bench. The full bench cannot also legally exercise all of its legal functions. The Liberian Bank for Development and Investment v. Holder, [1981] LRSC 30; 29 LLR 310 (1981), decided July 30, 1981.

As counsel for both petitioners/informants and respondents have already conceded that the petitioners/informants were not parties to the two cases for the enforcement of which the writ of possession was issued, and that the trial court erred by including their names in the said writ of possession, we need not further comment on it. The inclusion of their names in the writ of possession was, however, an illegal exercise of power by the trial judge. She contradicted the mandate which she was commanded to execute. Her conduct in this regard is reprehensible.

We are therefore, of the opinion that the writ of prohibition was not properly issued. The said writ of prohibition is therefore quashed. The bill of information is hereby granted. The Clerk of the Court is hereby ordered to send a mandate to the trial court commanding the presiding judge to resume jurisdiction and enforce the mandates of this Court. Costs of these proceedings are ruled against respondents. And it is hereby so ordered.

Information granted; petition denied.