By: Gerald D. Yeakula, Sr., Esq.

The legal profession relies as much on practical experience as it does on blackletter law codified in statutes and regulations. A defining feature of common law jurisdictions is the pivotal role of the courts in interpreting and giving effect to the law. As Chief Justice John Marshall of the United States Supreme Court famously stated Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” The Liberian legal system embraces this foundational principle of judicial review. Accordingly, lawyers and judges have a continuing duty to stay informed about Supreme Court decisions, and failure to do so cannot be excused. In Re Sillah, Sr. et. al LRSC 9 (2017)

It is only mid-2025, and the Supreme Court has already issued 65 opinions. Many of these rulings clarify important legal principles, making it essential for lawyers to stay updated. Here’s a brief look at some key opinions:

1. Legitimization: Mother’s Objection to, Not Definitive; A Party Who Is Not A Husband May Successfully Challenge Paternity of Child Conceived in Wedlock

In the case Kpargoi v. His Honor Scheaplor R. Dunbar (2025) , Petitioner filed with the Monthly and Probate Court documents for legitimization of his putative daughter, Tenneh F. Kpargoi. Petitioner claimed to have continuously supported the alleged daughter and that the following facts supported his claim: that at the time of the child’s conception the mother had been estranged from her husband, had moved out of the husband’s household and into Petitioner’s care as a result of the husband being physically abusive. The Respondent Mother, through Attorneys-in-Fact, filed objection to Petitioner’s Petition on grounds that the she was married at the time of her conception, was already pregnant before meeting the Petitioner and that her husband was the legitimate father of the subject child.

The Probate Court ruled granting the Respondent Mother’s Objection stating that it could not proceed with legitimizing the putative daughter under objection of the mother. Petitioner appealed. From this appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that while a husband is strongly presumed to be the father of a child born to his wife, the presumption can be overcome only by evidence precluding any procreative role of the husband; that the burden is on the one claiming paternity to show that around the time of conception, the Respondent/Appellee had no physical contact with her husband and had been cohabiting with the alleged father.

Finally, the Court stated that as a DNA Test is the only definitive means of ascertaining paternity in the case, same should be carried out. According to the Court, the Petitioner demonstrated that the child’s mother had fled her marital home due to abuse, and that during the relevant period of conception, she was cohabiting with him. He also provided evidence that he had supported the child since birth, that the child bore his surname and was covered under his medical insurance, and that affidavits from third parties confirmed a romantic relationship between him and the mother. This body of evidence, taken together, was found sufficient to warrant a scientific determination of paternity through DNA testing.

2. A Lawyer’s Charge of 20% Contingency Retainer Fee Not Excessive

Mr. Justice Kaba, delivering the Opinion of the Supreme Court of Liberia in the case In re GEC report on Cllr. Benedict F. Sannoh (2025), based on a Grievance and Ethics Committee (GEC) recommendation, found that a 20% contingency retainer agreement is not by any standard exorbitant where the parties to a retainer agreement had the capacity to consummate the agreement as executed and none of the parties questioned the legality of the agreement. In the Sannoh case, Concerned Citizens of Gola Konneh District had filed a complaint against Cllr. Benedict Sannoh alleging that he had misled some chiefs and elders of Gola Konneh District into believing that they had the legal authority to enter a retainer with him on behalf of the District. Cllr. Sannoh had collected a US$90,000.00 on the retainer.

This case compares with In Re: Allison v Counsellor Jones LRSC 24 (2013) in that in both instances, the lawyers successfully resolved their clients’ matters without resorting to litigation. However, it contrasts with the Jones case not only in terms of the numerical disparity of the retainer fee—33% in that instance—but also in the underlying ethical conduct. In the Jones case, Cllr. Jones failed to disclose his fee arrangement at the time he was retained and instead imposed the high fee only after receiving the hefty settlement amount for his client.

3. A Lessee Who Has Paid Rent to the Landlord Cannot Successfully Challenge Landlord’s Title

Speaking for the Court in Congress for Democratic Change (CDC) v. The interstate Estate of Martha Stubblefield Bernard (2025), Madam Justice Wolokollie opined that party in privity with a judgment debtor is bound by a final judgment and may not relitigate or obstruct its enforcement. The Court held further that a tenant in possession of a conveyed property is estopped from denying, challenging, or disputing the landlord’s title and may not defeat the landlord’s suit for possession. The Court had ruled in 2016 in favor of the Intestate Estate of Martha Stubblefield Bernard (1st respondent), ordering the eviction of the Congress for Democratic Change (CDC) and the Testate Estate of William Thomas Bernard, Sr. (2nd respondent) from the disputed property. Despite the ruling, CDC remained on the property, paid court-awarded damages and six years’ rent, and entered into negotiations to purchase the portion it occupied. However, CDC later stalled the purchase, citing a third-party claim by the Intestate Estate of Danielle P. Tucker Bernard, which was the subject of a pending appeal. CDC subsequently filed a bill of information, alleging it was denied due process because it was never summoned in the original ejectment action. The Supreme Court rejected this claim, holding that CDC, having leased the property from the 2nd respondent, was in privity with a party to the earlier suit and therefore bound by the 2016 judgment. The Court found the bill of information to be a misuse of legal process and fined CDC’s lawyers for filing a frivolous and impermissible petition. The Court held that a bill of information cannot be used to delay or circumvent the Supreme Court’s mandate, especially where the informant has recognized the judgment through payments or negotiations.

4. Judicial Misconduct Undermining Impartiality and Integrity Warrants Severe Disciplinary Action

In the case In Re JIC Report on Magistrate Richard K. Flomo (2025), Mr. Justice Kaba noted that a judicial officer who interferes with the final judgment of a superior court, engages in ex parte communications to influence a case, or compromises the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary through unethical conduct—including political partisanship, improper legal advice, or solicitation of bribes—commits an egregious violation of the Judicial Canons and is subject to suspension, referral for removal, and other disciplinary sanctions. Magistrate Richard K. Flomo was found to have committed serious breaches of judicial ethics by violating several Judicial Canons. His misconduct included interfering in a case already decided by a superior court, improperly coaching a public defender during a trial he was not presiding over, and attempting to obstruct the enforcement of a lawful court judgment. He also admitted to using his judicial position to influence outcomes for personal or political gain, was seen publicly wearing partisan political attire in violation of judicial neutrality, and was implicated in soliciting or receiving a bribe related to court proceedings. These actions collectively demonstrated a profound disregard for the ethical standards expected of judicial officers. The Court stated that judges must uphold their oath of office and the standards imposed by the Judicial Canons, including avoiding any conduct that undermines public confidence in the judiciary, improperly influences litigation, or demonstrates political bias. Where such conduct is substantiated, particularly when accompanied by admissions or corroborating evidence such as audio recordings or third-party testimony, the Supreme Court may impose the maximum penalty and recommend revocation of judicial appointment. The Court then ordered that Magistrate Richard K. Flomo is suspended immediately and his name forwarded to the President for revocation of appointment.

The Supreme Court has released several other interesting opinions so far this year. Want to explore them? Click here.

About the Author

Gerald D. Yeakula, Sr., Esq. is a legal researcher and licensed attorney based at the Center for Transparency and Accountability in Liberia (CENTAL). He is the Co-founder of LibLaw and an Assistant Professor of Law at the Liberia School of Law (LSL). He is currently pursuing a Doctor of Laws (LLD) at the University of Pretoria, where his research focuses on realizing the right to development through international cooperation against illicit financial flows. He holds a Master of Laws (LLM) in Human Rights and Democratization in Africa from the University of Pretoria, an LLB (Cum Laude) from the Louis Arthur Grimes School of Law, University of Liberia, and a B.Sc. in Economics from the same university.