ALRAINE (Liberia) LTD., Appellant, v. E. S. KOROMA,

Circuit Court Judge presiding over the June 1973 Term, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, and WEST AFRICAN TRADING CO., Appellees. APPEAL FROM RULING OF JUSTICE DENYING ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF PROHIBITION. Argued October 23, 1973. Decided November 23, 1973. 1. When no basis for the issuance of a writ of prohibition has been shown to the Justice in chambers denying the petition, the ruling will be affirmed by the full Court. Petitioner alleged that on the day the case in which it was the defendant wais assigned for trial, the notice of assignment was served\ on counsel. A motion for continuance was made, on the ground that a material witness was not available. The motion was denied and thereupon an application for a writ of prohibition was submitted to the Justice in chambers. The respondents disputed the factual allegations and denied the jurisdictional basis for issuance of the writ. The petition was denied by the Justice and an appeal was taken to the full Court. The ruling was affirmed. Moses K. Yangbe Jones for appellees. for appellant. M. Fahnbulleh delivered the opinion of the MR. Court. JUSTICE AZANGO From a ruling in chambers by Justice Wardsworth, quashing an alternative writ of prohibition and denying the petition, has come this appeal to the full bench for review. The petitioner states that the trial of an action was as308 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 309 signed on the same day the assignment was served on him and that a motion for continuance based on the absence of a material witness was denied. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for the issuance of a writ of prohibition against the respondents, restraining the respondent judge from further proceeding with the trial of the case, and to appear before the Justice to show cause why the petition should not be granted, and a peremptory writ of prohibition issued. The respondents in their returns have contended that there is no jurisdictional basis for issuance of a writ and that a pattern of delay, of which this application is a part, characterizes petitioner’s past conduct in the action. They also deny many of the factual allegations in the petition. When the case was called for hearing before us, counsellor Moses K. Yangbe, one of counsel for petitioner, contended that the sole issue presented herein was the denial of his motion for continuance by the trial judge. We agree with such observation. Therefore, having carefully considered the record and the arguments advanced by counsel for petitioner and respondents, and reviewing the ruling of our colleague, we find ourselves in complete agreement therewith and hereby affirm said ruling, with costs against petitioner. It is so ordered. Affirmed.