MAMADEE KABA, et al., Informants, v. MUSA KARNEH, et al., Respondents.

CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS. Argued November 25, 1975. Decided December 31, 1975. 1. A judge’s ruling which reverses the ruling of a colleague of concurrent jurisdiction is void ab initio, for he has no power to do so. Informants brought a bill of information before the Supreme Court, alleging that respondents were in contempt for having disobeyed the ruling of a lower court judge. The respondents contended that they were not in contempt, for the judge referred to had overruled two other judges of the same Circuit, and himself, which rulings had ordered respondent Karneh to pay $1,600.00 to the estate of the deceased owner of the property involved, and thereafter be placed in possession. Respondents contended that, therefore, the ruling in the case had been obeyed. The Supreme Court agreed with respondents and held that the ruling judge referred to had no power to overrule colleagues. Therefore, the respondents were not in contempt of the Supreme Court or any court. The information was dismissed and the ruling prior to the judge’s reversal thereof was reinstated and ordered to be enforced. Philip J. L. Brumskine for informants. Richards for respondents. J. Dossen MR. Court. JUSTICE HORACE delivered the opinion of the A perusal of the record certified to us in these proceedings reveals such a mass of confusion that it has been 436 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 437 difficult to resolve the issues. However, since the real issue is that of contempt we shall commence with that and then endeavor to deal with the other issues involved. It appears that although a writ of possession had been executed in co-respondent Musa Karneh’s favor on March 4, 1971, and a writ of execution issued against informants in these proceedings on March 19, 1971, for some reason not disclosed in the record before us another writ of possession and writ of execution, both dated April z6, 1972, were issued by the Probate Division of the Circuit Court for the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Nimba County. This is just one instance of the confusion referred to above. On May 9, 1972, informants filed another bill of information stating in substance that although they had filed an information before the full bench of the Supreme Court, they had been ousted from the premises in question while said information was still pending before this Court. Whereupon our distinguished colleague, Mr. Justice Henries, instructed the judge presiding over the May 1972 Term of the Eighth Judicial Circuit Court to reinstate the information on the property in question until the matter was heard by the full bench. The information before us relates mainly to a ruling given by Judge Roderick N. Lewis when presiding over the November 1968 Term of the Eighth Judicial Circuit Court, Nimba County. As far as we can gather from the record, during the August 1967 Term of said court, Judge Draper had ruled that co-respondent Musa Karneh pay the estate of his late uncle $1,600.00 for two houses built on the premises for which Karneh held an older tribal certificate from the tribal authorities, and that upon his payment of the amount of $1,600.00 a writ of possession be executed in his favor. The ruling also directed that Surveyor C. K. Dagadu survey the parcel of land in question and issue a deed in favor of Musa Karneh. Karneh paid the money but when an attempt was made 438 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS to survey the land, the surveyor was obstructed by the informants. Judge Tulay, when presiding over the November 1967 Term of the Eighth Judicial Circuit Court, upon application of Abdullai Karneh, surviving brother of the two deceased brothers, made him administrator of the intestate estate of his brothers. He, however, confirmed the ruling of Judge Draper. During the November 1968 Term, Judge Roderick N. Lewis presiding over said term of court, the matter was brought up before him by co-respondent Musa Karneh who had paid the amount of $1,600.00 ruled by Judge Draper to be paid but was still not in possession of the property as he should have been upon the payment of said amount. On December 2, 1968, Judge Lewis ruled, confirming the rulings of Judge Draper and Judge Tulay. When a protest was filed by informants against those rulings, Judge Lewis surprisingly revoked his ruling of December 2, 1968, as well as the rulings of his two colleagues, Judge Draper and Judge Tulay. From that point on the matter became more confused, co-respondent Musa Karneh and co-respondent Stephen Dunbar insisting on the enforcement of the ruling of Judge Draper and informants insisting on the enforcement of the ruling of Judge Lewis revoking the ruling of his colleagues of concurrent jurisdiction, because Musa Karneh’s appeal from Judge Lewis’s ruling had been dismissed due to a defective appeal bond. We hold that Judge Lewis’s ruling revoking the rulings of his two colleagues of concurrent jurisdiction was void ab initio, because he could not legally do so. This Court has held that a court has no power to interfere with a judgment of another court of concurrent jurisdiction. See Republic V. Aggrey, 13 LLR 469 (196o) ; Kanawaty v. King, [1960] LRSC 66; 14 LLR 241 (1960). We have given only a bird’s eye view of the case in order to show what we had to contend with in going over LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 439 the record, but what has been recounted here by no means gives a complete picture of all the issues involved. Coming now to the bill of information and the return thereto, counsel for informants in his argument before us endeavored to point out the many irregularities in the case, but in the end had to admit that he could not tell what is the present status of the case. We are not confused on one point, and that is that the erroneous portion of the ruling of Judge Lewis revoking his previous ruling certainly did not put an end to the proceedings. Counsel for respondents in his argument at this bar emphasized that the matter before us is contempt, and insisted that his clients had not contemned this Court, because the acts complained of were acts of the court below and not acts by his clients. A careful consideration of the matter leads us to the conclusion that respondents’ position is a more tenable one. We cannot see where respondents have contemned this Court. The confusion in this matter has been brought about almost entirely by judges of the lower court and even the former Chief Justice, who at one point instructed the judges to enforce the mandate of the Supreme Court. What mandate he had reference to is difficult to understand, because certainly the mandate sent down after the dismissal of co-respondent Karneh’s appeal because of a defective appeal bond could not make the erroneous ruling of Judge Lewis valid. Perhaps the Chief Justice was referring to the instructions sent down to Judge Alfred Raynes by Justice Wardsworth in February, 1968, to investigate the complaint of Musa Karneh and if found correct, to enforce the ruling of Judge Draper. Unfortunately Judge Raynes resigned before he could carry out the instructions of the Chief Justice While it is true that courts of justice have an inherent power to punish for contempt, yet it would be improper to punish for contempt where there has been no dis- 44() LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS obedience of orders, no disturbing of proceedings, and the authority and the dignity of the courts have not been defied. A party litigant should never be held in contempt for urging his rights unless he runs afoul of the law and the court. it is our considered opinion, therefore, that respondents are not guilty of contemning this or any other court in the course of these proceedings and, therefore, the information is dismissed. We also hold that the only ruling in this case is that of Judge Draper as confirmed by Judge Tulay, which was not excepted to nor an appeal announced therefrom. The Clerk of this Court is hereby directed to send a mandate to the court below to resume jurisdiction and enforce the ruling of Judge Draper which was entered at the August 1967 Term of court and confirmed at the November 1967 Term of court by Judge Tulay. Costs of these proceedings are ruled against informants. And it hereby so ordered. Information dismissed.