TEHFLEH KOWREE EMERSON, by and through her Husband, S. W. EMERSON, Appellant, v. SAYON BRO-KRAH, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY. Argued November 22, 1966. Decided December 16, 1966. When an appellant has failed to serve notice of appeal on the appellee within the statutorily prescribed period of time, the appeal will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal from a ruling dismissing an injunction, appellee’s motion to dismiss was granted and the appeal dismissed. No appearance for appellant. appellee. James Doe Gibson for MR. JUSTICE SIMPSON delivered the opinion of the Court. During the December 1965 term of the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, sitting in its equity division, an action of injunction was filed by the appellant against the appellee for the purpose of enjoining him from trespassing upon and erecting a building on land allegedly owned by appellant. After pleadings had rested in the lower court, His Honor S. B. Dunbar, Sr., circuit judge presiding by assignment, heard and determined the issues of law as raised in the several pleadings and thereafter ordered the injunction dissolved on the 22nd day of June, 1966. Exceptions were taken to the ruling of the trial judge and an appeal was announced to this Court during the present term. When this cause was called for hearing, it was observed that appellee had filed a two-count motion to dismiss. 598 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 599 Count r of said motion alleged that notwithstanding the court below had ruled on the law issues on the 22nd day of June, 1966, the purported notice of completion of appeal did not issue until the 6th day of December, 1966, quite 16 days in excess of the time allowed by statute for completion of an appeal. Count 2 of the motion to dismiss further averred that no returns had been made to the tardy notice of completion of appeal so as to give evidence that the same had been properly served and to confer jurisdiction upon this Court to review the records of the court below. Appellee strenuously contended that the service and returns made thereto constitute a sine qua non to the conferral of jurisdiction to this Court of dernier resort. At the time for the review of this case, the Court noticed that the appellant had not filed any resistance to the motion to dismiss. Furthermore, neither counsel for appellant nor the appellant herself appeared to offer any resistance or explanation for the nonoffer ; therefore the Court proceeded to singly hear the motion and rule thereon. We must here again voice our strong disapproval of actions repeatedly taken by lawyers in the careless handling of the affairs of their clients. In the present case, a certificate of the clerk of the court below shows that the notice had been issued 16 days after the time allowed by statute. Furthermore, the same certificate mentioned that from an inspection of the notice of completion of appeal as filed on September 6, 1966, there was no indication thereon to the effect the the same had never been served on the appellee and returned to the clerk’s office by the ministerial officer of court as provided for by statute. Dealing first with Count 1 of the motion, it is observed that the notice of completion of appeal was not completed in accordance with the provision of Section Tow of our Civil Procedure Law. And this Court has held that : “Service of notice of appeal upon the appellee by the ministerial officer of the trial court completes the 600 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS appeal and places appellee under the jurisdiction of the appellate court. When not completed within the statutory time, this Court will dismiss said appeal for want of jurisdiction.” Morris v. Republic, [1934] LRSC 16; 4 L.L.R. 125 (1934) Syllabus 2. Speaking for this Court in another case, Mr. Justice Dossen said : “It is also admitted that the [lower] court correctly ruled in accordance with statutory law that it is the service of notice of appeal which gives the Court jurisdiction.” Brownell v. Brownell, [1936] LRSC 3; 5 L.L.R. 76, 79 (1936). These holdings were followed by this Court in Jones v. Republic, [1956] LRSC 11; 12 L.L.R. 297, 298 (1956). In view of the above it is the opinion of this Court that Count 1 of the motion is well taken and the same is therefore sustained and the appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction of this Court in virtue of the tardy issuance of notice of completion of appeal contrary to statute. The appeal is therefore ordered dismissed and the judgment of the lower court affirmed with costs against appellant. And it is hereby so ordered. Judgment affirmed.