IGAL AMMONS, et al., heirs of GABRIEL AMMONS and HENRY AMMONS, Appellants, v. ANTHONY BARCLAY, Appellee.

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL. Argued November 1, 1967. Decided January 18, 1968. 1. The Supreme Court will interpret the statutes enacted by the Republic of Liberia, and will not enact the laws, even when, as in the instant case, property rights of litigants are involved, and exceptions to the law are, therefore, claimed. 2. If a party fails in any cause to do that which the law requires him to do for himself, the Supreme Court will not assume to grant him those rights which, by his negligence, he has failed to secure for himself. 3. Failure to timely file an appeal bond, or the filing of an insufficient bond, resulting from the failure to comply with the statutory requirements therefor, are grounds for dismissal of an appeal upon motion by the opposing party. On motion to dismiss appeal in an action to remove cloud from title, for failure to timely serve and for defects in the appeal bond, the motion was granted, the appeal was dismissed, and the cause returned to the lower court for enforcement of its decree. Samuel C. Cole for appellants. T. Gybli Collins for appellee. MR. JUSTICE MITCHELL delivered the opinion of the Court. The rules of this Court governing its procedure and practice have been established over the years, and all practitioners before this bar are mandatorily required to conform to them, particularly in the processing or channeling of an appeal from subordinate courts to this appellate court. It is also a demand which this Court has over the years guarded, with great concern that all parties appealing their causes before it should keenly superintend them by surrounding them with all of the safeguards 212 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 213 of the law, for no other purpose than to afford themselves protection against attacks on jurisdictional issues. As for that matter, our statutes are also vocal on this principle, and when a party taking an appeal before the Supreme Court fails to comply with the statutes in vogue and the rules of Court, the appellate court will have no alternative but to take appropriate action on a motion properly made. On August 19, 1966, at eleven-fifty o’clock in the morning, Counsellor T. Gybli Collins, of counsel for appellee, filed a motion in the office of the Clerk of this Court, entitled : “Motion for order of court to resume jurisdiction and execute its decree.” The cause was entitled, Igal Ammons, et al., heirs of Gabriel Ammons and Henry Ammons, appellants, v. Anthony Barclay, appellee, and involved a bill in equity to remove cloud from title. This motion is hereinbelow set forth. “And now, Anthony Barclay, appellee in the above entitled cause, respectfully moves this Court for an order to the trial court, the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court, Montserrado County, to resume jurisdiction and enforce its decree, for the following legal reasons: lt 1. Because the appeal bond is patently defective, in that it is not signed by the appellants, but by Igal Ammons, one of the appellants, on behalf of some of them. See copy of bond hereto attached and marked exhibit ‘A.’ “2. And also because said purported appeal bond is further defective in that there is no amount stated in said bond. “3. And appellee says that the said purported appeal bond is further defective since, indeed, it lacki the necessary revenue stamp, and is, therefore, invalid. (See certificate annexed from clerk of court.) “4. And also because the said appeal bond is further defective in that said bond has not been approved by the trial judge, in accordance with statutes. 214 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS “5. And also because no notice of appeal has been issued, served and returned on appellee, which would thereby have placed him under the jurisdiction of this Court. (See certificate from clerk of Sixth Judicial Circuit Court.) “6. And also because the action was determined and a decree handed down by Hon. Joseph Findley on November 6, 1965, and for 261 days up to July 27, 1966, appellants have failed to pay for the record of the case to be sent forward on appeal. “Wherefore, appellee respectfully prays that the Court issue an order to the court below, requiring said court to resume jurisdiction and execute its decree.” Although this motion was filed in the clerk’s office in the month of August 1966, when this case was reached at this Term for a hearing, fifteen months thereafter, appellants’ counsel maintained that he had not been served with a copy of the said motion and requested a postponement to afford him an opportunity to answer. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, the Court granted this request and allowed a postponement. Subsequently, after an answering affidavit was filed in opposition to the motion, the case was again called and argument had. The opposing affidavit reads : “1. That under the law it is the duty of the court from which the appeal is taken to make a full and complete copy of the records containing all of the pleadings, writs, motions, judgments, verdicts, bills of exceptions, and other records in the proceedings and transmit same to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, and any neglect by the clerk of the trial court to do so within ninety days after the appeal is taken is not a legal ground for the dismissal of the appeal. Therefore, any motion made prior to the compliance with this provision of the law, is premature and should not be entertained by the appellate court. “2. That after announcement of their appeal in LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 215 this case, all jurisdictional steps were taken by the appellants up to the issuance of the notice of the completion of the appeal and placed in the hands of the Sheriff for service. “3. That when the documents have been misplaced or lost in the trial court, it is not their responsibility and is insufficient grounds to dismiss the appeal. “4. That being a case in which a property right is involved, the motion to dismiss is not sufficiently sound in law to warrant a dismissal. “5. And lastly, that this Court, being vested with the responsibility of upholding the organic laws of this Republic, the custodian of the rights, privileges and liberties of the citizens, should not allow these rights to be denied parties litigant without the exercise of patience and forebearance, by either having the clerk of the court below search diligently for the missing records, and should they not be found, have the case tried on its merits, so that justice may be meted out to both parties.” The foregoing are the grounds of the motion to dismiss and the opposition filed thereto. Considering them in reverse order, we shall first direct our attention to appellants’ opposing affidavit and ascertain if it is sufficient . in law to warrant denial of appellee’s motion. In doing so, the following are the points which we will address ourselves to : i. Whether it is incumbent upon the trial court to oversee an appeal or, rather, the absolute responsibility of an appellant to pursue his appeal to its completion according to the statutes? 2. If the failure of an appellant to comply with the law can be attributed to the neglect of the trial court? 3. If a motion to dismiss on the grounds of failure to have the notice of appeal issued, served, and returned within the specified time, constitutes a ground for dismissal of an appeal? 216 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 4. If all of the jurisdictional steps in an appeal are completed by an appellant, and the appellee attacks the jurisdiction of the appellate court over his person, what does the law require to satisfy the mind of the Court that the appeal has been legally prosecuted to its completion? 5. If property rights are involved, is the appellate court authorized under the statutes to disregard a motion to dismiss if the grounds thereof are substantial? 6. Where a party disregards his own rights under the statutes, can the application of the Constitution restore those rights? In Johnson, et al. v. Roberts, i L.L.R. 8 (1861), this Court said that a party appealing should superintend the appeal and see that all legal requisites are completed. It said further in the body of this opinion at p. 8 : “The clerk whose duty it is to forward the records of the court under seal cannot do so unless the parties suing file bond, according to law, and the party appealing ought here themselves superintend the lawful prerequisites. It is for the safety of the parties that said requisitions be met, and it must therefore be a gross injustice to the appellee to compel him to answer to any appeal taken out contrary to law.” Although we have closely examined appellants’ affidavit, we have not been able to determine what principles of law are relied upon. However, because we feel ourselves bound to reply to all legal argument brought before us for consideration, we shall deal with it in this opinion. In McCauley v. Laland, i L.L.R. 254 (1894), this Court again held that in appeals it is the writ of summons or notice to the appellee which gives the court jurisdiction over the case, and the statutes relating to the time within which appeals must be taken is imperative and includes everything necessary to be done to bring the appellee properly before the appellate court. An appeal LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 217 is not complete until the appellee has been summoned or notified, which must be done within the time allowed for the completion of the appeal or the Court . will refuse jurisdiction. Where all of the jurisdictional steps in an appeal are completely taken by the appellant within the time specified by law, and the appellee moves the Court to dismiss the cause because of the incompletion of the appeal, it then becomes incumbent upon the appellant to procure a certificate from the clerk of the lower court, substantiating the fact that appellee’s motion is unfounded. In this case, notwithstanding that appellants averred that they made profert of a certificate from the clerk of the trial court to prove the fact that the notice was duly issued, served and returned, they failed to do so, which in our opinion indicates that they had neglected to do that which they should have done, and this Court will refuse to do for parties that which the law requires them to do for themselves. The statutes on dismissal of appeals is positive and unambiguous, and this Court is not given the authority or right under the organic law of Liberia to enact laws. Rather, in our field as dispensers of justice, we are called upon to interpret the law by preserving and keeping inviolate the principles of the Constitution which are the framework of our democracy, whether or not property rights are involved. According to the statutes, if the appellant in any given case fails to do that which the law requires him to do for himself, the Court will not assume to grant him those rights, which, by his negligence, he has failed to secure for himself. The certificate made profert by the appellee in this case with his motion papers, which comes from the then acting clerk of the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court, Montserrado County, reads as follows : “From a careful perusal of the records in the office of the clerk, in the case : Anthony Barclay, Petitioner, 218 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS Igal Ammons, et al., Respondents. “Bill in equity to remove cloud from title. “This is to show that the appeal bond filed in the clerk’s office has no revenue stamps, no value of the bond specified, and there is no judge’s signature showing approval of said bond. “Also, that there is no notice of appeal found in the file in the above mentioned case. “In view of the foregoing, I am issuing this certificate to the petitioner. “Given under my hand this 24th day of May, 1966. “[Sgd.] GEORGE M. LANDERS, Acting clerk, Civil Law Court, Mo. Co.” This certificate does not certify that an appeal bond was never filed in the office of the clerk, or that it was filed and could not be located, as appellants seem to have claimed. It specifically avers that the bond filed in the office was without a revenue stamp as the law requires, and also that no indemnity was stated in the bond. And too, that there was no notice of appeal found in the file, which allegation obviously indicates that no notice had been served and returned by the Sheriff. This is quite contrary to the grounds of appellants’ affidavit in opposition to the motion, since counsel maintained that these records were missing from the files and should be charged to the negligence of the court below, for which the appellants should not be held liable. According to the aforesaid certificate, therefore, appellants’ argument appears to the Court to be without merit. Our Civil Procedure Law, 1956 Code 6:1013, provides in part : “Every appellant shall give an appeal bond in an amount to be fixed by the court, with two or more legally qualified sureties, to the effect that he will indemnify the appellee from all cost or injury arising from the appeal, if unsuccessful, and that he will corn- LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 219 ply with the judgment of the appellate court or of any other court to which the case is removed. Such bond shall be approved by the trial judge and filed with the clerk of the court within sixty days after rendition of judgment.” Moreover, � 1o14 of the same Civil Procedure Law, states : “Failure to file an appeal bond within the specified time, or filing of an insufficient bond shall be grounds for dismissal of appeal. . . .” In Mark-Reeves v. Republic of Liberia, [1963] LRSC 7; 15 L.L.R. 229 (1963), this Court was very definite on the insufficiency of an appeal bond, insofar as it relates to the failure of the appellant to place the indemnification in the body of an appeal bond. And see Freeman v. Republic of Liberia, [1915] LRSC 5; 2 L.L.R. 189 (1915), on omission of the revenue stamp. Having reviewed the grounds of appellants’ arguments, we will now direct our attention to the motion to dismiss. We have carefully examined this motion and found it to be in total harmony with the law and our practice, because it is based on grounds provided under our Civil Procedure Law, 1956 Code 6:1020, and is supported by numerous decisions handed down by this Court in similar cases. The motion, therefore, being well taken, is hereby granted. The appeal not having been perfected for one hundred and twenty-nine days since the final decree was entered in the trial court, nothing remains for this appellate court to do under the circumstance than to order the trial court to resume jurisdiction and proceed to enforce its decree immediately. Costs are hereby ruled against the appellants. And it is hereby so ordered. Motion granted.