Varney Mambu Dennis, the Intestate Estate of David Coleman by and thru its Administrators De Bonis Non, David A. Garnet, Ambrose, Logan and all occupants under their control of S.D. Cooper Road, Congo Town, Montserrado County, Liberia. Petitioners Versus The Intestate Estate of James Morris by and thru its Administrator, Richard B. Quadeh of S. D. Cooper Road, Paynesville, Montserrado County, Liberia. Respondent
Heard: March 23, 2026
Decided: May 21, 2026
MADAM JUSTICE CLINTON- JOHNSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT
This petition for re- argument emanates from this Court’s unanimous Opinion affirming the ruling of the trial court in an ejectment action where the trial judge affirmed the jury’s verdict, in which the respondent was ordered placed in possession of its property thereof by this Court, according to the metes and bounds of its deed that was pleaded.
In the petition for re- argument, the petitioners are contending that this Court ignored the issue of the trial court’s denial of a motion for investigative survey, for reason that the said motion was untimely filed; that the act of this Court, in ignoring the said issue, constitutes
This Court has further opined that re- hearings are not granted as a matter of right, and not allowed merely for the purpose of re- argument or because a party disagrees with the Court’s decision; unless there is a reasonable probability that the Court had arrived at the erroneous conclusion or overlooked some important question or matter necessary to a correct decision; or that a motion for re- argument will be denied where the points of the motion are either an elaboration of issues fully briefed and argued, or while dealing with a subject not completely briefed, bring to the court’s attention new matters to which consideration was not given before reaching a decision. Lamco J.V. Operating Co. v. Azzam et al, 31 LLR 649, 654 (1983).
It is significant to indicate, in determining whether or not any facts or points of law was overlooked, we quote verbatim this Court’s Judgment of August 14, 2025:
“That in an action of ejectment where both parties present deeds which indicate that the contested properties are either overlapped or in separate locations, the court will make a logical determination by the aid of an investigative survey. However, when the motion for an investigative survey is not timely filed or when the case has already been decided, in the interest of justice, the winning party shall be placed in possession of the property by the aid of the surveyor based on the metes and bounds of his/her deed which was pleaded; and
That in the instant case, the court having denied the motion for investigative survey, trial proceeded with and final judgment entered in favor of the appellee; the court shall proceed to possess the appellee based on the metes and bounds of his deed.
WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF THE FORGOING, the final ruling of the trial court is affirmed and the appellee ordered placed in possession of its property according to the metes and bounds of its deed pleaded. The Clerk of this Court is ordered to send a Mandate to the lower court, commanding the judge presiding therein to resume jurisdiction over this case and give effect to this Judgment. Costs are ruled against the appellant. AND IT IS SO ORDERED.”
This Mandate of the Court clearly shows that the issue of the investigative survey was addressed by this Court in its Opinion when it opined that while it was the due process right of the petitioner to pray for an investigative survey in the trial court, it is also true that such right is time bound; that is to say, the motion for investigative survey, being a matter of law issue, should have being filed as a pretrial motion and determined before the matter was ruled to trial, but the petitioners failed to request the trial court for an investigative survey before trial commenced, as such, the petitioners suffered waiver and laches. The Supreme Court has been and remain very consistent in upholding the principle, that the courts will not do for party litigants that which they have an obligation or ought to do for themselves. Jappeh v. Thian, 35 LLR 82,89 (1988); Sio v. Sio, 35 LLR 92,97 (1988).
From the perusal of this case file, it is revealed that when the trial court denied the motion for investigative survey, the petitioners herein sought a redress before the Justice in Chambers, praying for the issuance of the alternative Writ of Certiorari but the Justice in
Chambers declined the issuance of the Writ of Certiorari and ordered the trial court to proceed with the hearing and determination of the case.
The records before this Court reveal that on April 22, 2022, the lawyers representing the parties were present during the selection of the petit jury and the taking of testimony of a witness; at this time, there was no motion for investigative survey before the trial court. On April 25, 2022, when the case was called for continuation of trial, during representation, the petitioners informed the court that they had filed a petition for investigative survey, which submission was resisted and denied on the ground that the said motion is a pretrial motion which must be filed before trial and the fact that the jury had been empaneled and trial had begun, the motion was filed belatedly. This ruling of the trial judge was unanimously decided by this Court, en banc, to be sound in law
This issue of the investigative survey having been addressed in the unanimous opinion of this Court on August 14, 2025, we do not see where any law or facts was overlooked nor do we see any legal basis to disturb the unanimous Opinion of this Court since the sole issue raised in the petitioners’ petition is not a new issue that was not raised, briefed and determined by this Court.
We are of the opinion that the motion for investigative survey is a matter of law which must be filed as a pretrial motion and determined before the matter is ruled to trial. However, the failure to timely make such request constitutes waivers and laches.
It is our holding, that the issue of the investigative survey having been addressed by this Court and the petitioners’ failure to show any other legal ground, facts or points of law which may have been inadvertently overlooked by this Court, this Court maintains its August 14, 2025 Judgment.
WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF THE FORGOING, the petition for re- argument is hereby denied and dismissed, and accordingly, the judgment rendered on August 14, 2025, is hereby confirmed and affirmed. The Clerk of this Court is ordered to send a Mandate to the court below, commanding the judge presiding therein to resume jurisdiction over this case and give effect to the Judgment of this Opinion. Costs are ruled against the petitioners. AND IT IS HEREBY SO ORDERED.
Denied.
When this case was called for hearing, Counsellor Dennis S. Sokan appeared for the petitioner. Counsellor James N. Kumeh appeared for the respondent.