HAWAH KIAZOLU, Informant, v. HIS HONOUR J. HENRIC PEARSON, Assigned Circuit Judge, the Sheriff for Montserrado County, et al., Respondents.
INFORMATION PROCEEDINGS.
Heard: November 7, 1988. Decided: December 30, 1988.
1. A judgment of a court is not binding upon a party who has neither been duly cited to appear before the court nor afforded an opportunity to be heard.
2. A judgment is not binding or conclusive on a stranger to the litigation. A stranger to the litigation is a person who is not a party, or in privity with, or represented by a party, and who has not been served with process and. does not by actual intervention bring himself within the litigation.
3. Res judicata means that there is an existing final judgment rendered upon the merits of a cause, and which was rendered without fraud or collusion, by a competent court of jurisdiction, and is conclusive as to the rights, questions and facts in issue as to the parties and privies, in all other action in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction.
4. A person not party to an action or proceeding, who is not cited or summoned to appear is not bound by a court’s judgment in such action or proceeding.
5. Realty cancellation proceeding does not concern itself with collection of rents.
6. A court’s mandate is a command, order or direction, written or oral which the acting court is authorized to give, and a person is bound to obey. It is a judicial command and precept proceeding from a court or judicial officer directing the proper officer to enforce a judgment, sentence or decree.
7. When emanating from an appellate court, a mandate is a precept or order issue upon decision of an appeal or writ of error, directing action to be taken, or disposition to be made of a case by an inferior court.
Informant filed a bill of information before the lower court, contending that although she was not a party to a decision rendered earlier by the court, the sheriff of the lower court, claiming that he was acting in obedience to a mandate from the Supreme Court, had instructed her tenants to pay rents to the court. Her bill of information was granted by the judge of the lower court, who ordered the sheriff not to collect rents from informant’s tenants. In a subsequent term of the lower court, the assigned judge ignored his predecessor’s ruling and ordered the sheriff to collect rents from informant’s tenants. Informant petitioned the Chambers Justice for a writ of prohibition. The writ was issued and served and that case remains pending in the Chambers undecided. Informant filed this bill of information before the Supreme Court because the sheriff continued to collect rents from her tenants on the ground that he had the judge’s order to do so. The Supreme Court, after traversing the issues raised in the bill of information, held that a judgment is not binding on a party who, as in the case of the informant, was neither cited nor summoned and did not act to intervene or otherwise bring herself into the original lawsuit or under the jurisdiction of the court. Hence, the information was granted.
M Fahnbulleh Jones for the informant. Isaac C. Nipple for the respondents.
MR. JUSTICE BELLEH delivered the opinion of the Court.
This bill of information grows out of the opinion and judgment of this Court rendered during its March, A . D. 1988 Term in the case: Republic of Liberia by and through the Minister ofJustice, Honorable Jenkins K .Z . B. Scott, v. Morve Sone, Varmuyah Corneh and all those claiming under the Aborigine Grant Deed of [1988] LRSC 43; 1931, 35 LLR 126 (1988), in an action to cancel an Aborigine Grant Deed purportedly signed in 1931 by Edwin J. Barclay in favor of Morve Sone et al. for 25 acres of land lying and situated in Vai Town. This Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court and declared null and void the said Aborigine Grant Deed. It was while the civil law court was in tho process of enforcing the mandate of this Court when this bill of information originated. We deem it appropriate to quote verbatim relevant portions of that said bill of information:
COUNT 1. That Informant is one of tho decedents and/or heirs of tho Residents of Vai Town (Vai John’s people) who were residents of Bushrod Island in the area now and known as Vai Town to whom tho Republic of Liberia during the incumbency of Arthur Barclay as President of Liberia in the year 1906 executed an Aborigine Grant Deed to Chief Murphy and the Residents of Vai Town (Vai John’s people).
Copy of the said Deed is hereto attached and marked Exhibit “IMF/1.
COUNT 2. Your Informant says that during the September Term A.D. 1964 of the Civil Law Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit Montserrado County, in entering a decree for reformation of a lease agreement, the court presided over by the late His Honour Roderick N. Lewis entered a final decree and in said decree reformed the Lease into a Tribal Title Deed which was signed by Ciafa Laleiba, Chief of Vai Town, Janoka Balonfonde and Sekou Sonii et al. as Grantors to your Informant Hawah Kaizolu-Wahab as Grantee. Which Tribal Title Deed was signed on the 8th day of June, 1950 and the Court’s Final Decree entered on the 27 th day of October, A. D. 1964. Copy of the Decree which incorporates the Tribal Title Deed is also hereto attached and marked Exhibit IMF/2”.
COUNT 6. Informant says that Respondents Boima Lartey, Alhaji J. D. Lassanna, Brima Kamara, Meata Kiadii, Daba Kaidii, Carteen Mardi Ami, Belleh et al., surviving heirs and Decedents of Chief Murphy and the Residents of Vai Town (Vey John’s people), Plaintiffs, instituted an action of ejection against Alhaji Varmuyah Corneh, Alhaji Sundifu Sonii, Alhaji Siaka Sheriff, .Adama Sheriff, Alhaji Boakai Sonii, Molley Sameah, Alhaji Abud Kaozolu, Boakai, et al., Defendants, claiming interest and title in the 25 acres of land, Bushrod Island. This case is pending in this Court and is listed on the docket of this Court, No. 241 and is still undecided. This case came up for disposition of the law issues before His Honour Frank W. Smith, Assigned Circuit Judge, presiding over the December Term 1981 of the Civil Law Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit. In disposing of the issues of law, Judge Smith ruled that all rents accruing from the 25 acres of land should be held in escrow until the final determination of the Ejection suit. Based upon this ruling, the sheriff of the court in collecting the rents from the tenants elected to demand rents from the tenants of your Informant Hawah Kaizolu-Wahab.. Whereupon, your Informant filed a Bill of Information before Judge Smith stating in substance that she was not a party to the ejection suit and therefore the Ruling of Judge Smith ordering the sheriff to collect the rents and keep them in escrow did not affect her. Judge Smith assigned the Information for hearing. The Informant was represented by tho Wakolo Law Office in person of Counsellor M.. Fahnbulleh Jones and the plaintiffs were represented by the Carlor, Gordon, Hne & Teewia Law Firm in person of Counsellors James D. Gordon and David D. Kpomakpor. After hearing arguments pro et con ‘Judge Smith on the 22′ day of January, 1982, ruled as follows “Court’s ruling on the Bill of Information. A careful perusal of the Complaint in the Ejection suit involving Boima Lartey et al, v. Alhaji Varmuyah Corneh et al., we have discovered that the Defendant Hawah Kaizolu-Wahab is not one of the Defendants whom the Plaintiffs sought to eject. During the argument, counsel for Plaintiffs also admits that the Informant is not one of the party defendants. In the opinion of the court and rightly so, the order of court as entered in this case to keep the rents in escrow only affects the tenants of party/defendants and not all who are living on the premises in question and not sued. This being the case, said Informant and her tenants are hereby excluded from the court’s ruling in the motion for sequestration, not being a party to the suit. The sheriff of this court is hereby directed to take notice of this Ruling. And it is hereby so ordered. Given under my hand this 2’ day of January, A. D. 1982 with the Seal of Court. Frank W. Smith, Assigned Circuit Judge. The plaintiffs did not except to this ruling of Judge Smith. Copy of the said ruling is to hereto attached and marked exhibit ” IMF/3″.
COUNT 7. Your Informant says that because His Honour Hall W. Badio, assigned circuit judge presiding over the December Term 1985 of the Civil Law Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, elected to disregard the ruling of Judge Smith and your informant proceeded by a writ of prohibition before His Honour Elwood L. Jangaba, then Justice presiding in Chambers for a writ of prohibition. The writ was issued and served and the said case is still pending in the Chambers undecided. In the petition for a writ of prohibition, count one, thereof, it is averred that Petitioner Hawah Kaizolu-Wahab, now informant in these proceedings is the owner of five and a half lots situated and lying in Bushrod Island in the area of Vai Town which deed grows out of the 1906 Deed executed by the late President Arthur Barclay to Chief Murphy and the Inhabitants of Vai Town. And proffered the Tribal Title Deed referral to, supra, and the 1906 Deed also referred to, supra. Copy of the writ of prohibition and the petition are hereto attached and marked exhibits “IMF/4” and “IMF/5” respectively to form a part of this information.
COUNT 8. Your informant says that in the case Republic of Liberia v. Morve Sonii et al, respondents bill of equity for cancellation of public land sale deed of 1931 for twentyfive acres of land situated in the Bushrod Island acres instituted in the Civil Law Court and finally determined by this Court, your informant is not a party directly or indirectly to said action either as plaintiff or respondent nor was she summoned nor did she voluntarily appear in the proceedings. The reason being that your informant holds a genuine title deed for five and a half lot carved out of the twenty-five acres of land which has not been contested or attacked in any court in this Republic. The said deed was executed since the 9th day of June 1950 and confirmed by court’s decree on the 27 day of October, 1964. Informant requests court to take judicial notice of her exhibit..
COUNT 9. Your informant says that despite all the law and facts recited herein, because of the ruling of Judge Badio in the cancellation proceedings decided by this Court during its March Term 1988, the Sheriff for Montserrado County is compelling the tenants of your informant to pay the rents due her to him, to be held in escrow as in keeping with Judge Badio’ s ruling. The tenants are A-Z Corporation; Bridge way Store; Bazzi Brothers; Halabi Brothers/Waamo Rose Industry, Inc.; Electro motor; Hamidan Brothers, etc., occupying the five and a half lots, which was contrary to the ruling of Judge Badio which was confirmed by this Court.
Respondents having been served with the writ of information, filed an eleven-count returns which we hereunder quote word for word:
COUNT 1. Respondents answering the bill of information say that count one of the bill of information is misleading in that, Informant has never been any of the descendants and /or heirs of the residents of Vey Town (Vey John’s people) when the Aborigine Grant Deed to Chief Murphy of 1906 was issued. Informant entered upon the land she now occupied that is inclusive in the 25 acres of land, by a Lease Agreement concluded by and between Informant and Ciaffa Jaleiba and Varmuyah Corneh et al. that were claiming title to the 25 acres of 1 and under the 1931 Deed, hence, Count One must be dismissed.
COUNT 2. And also because Respondents say that Count two of the Bill of Information is a fallacy and contradicts Count One, in that, according, to Judge Lewis’ decree which Informant relied upon for which informant is claiming under the 1906 Deed yet of late, the judge held ‘This case was instituted by the Petitioner Madam Hawah Kaizolu-Wahab, one of the residents of Vai Town and also a Vai woman who in her petition alleges that by virtue of her being one of the Vai residents in Via Town and by virtue of the fact that she has as other Vais in the area, improved, developed a certain portion, of land covered by the Deed from the Republic of Liberia to the people of Vai Town through the then Chief, Morve Sonii, she is entitled to the sole possession, enjoyment and ownership of the piece of property described in the Lease Agreement by and between them executed since the 8 th day of June, A. D. 1950 and recorded in Volume 63, Pages 898-899 of the records of Montserrado County.” Respondents submit that, the relevant portion of Judge Lewis’ Judgment herein recited, settled the allusions averred in Count One that Informant is one of the decedents and/or heirs of the residents of Vai Town (Vey John’s people) during the incumbency of Arthur Barclay as President of Liberia in the year 1906 when he executed an Aborigine Grant Deed to Chief Murphy. Respondents aver that Informant having entered upon the five and a half lots by means of a Lease Agreement entered into by and between More Sonii, Varmuyah Corneh et al. and/or their designees or heirs, on the 8th day of June A. D. 1950 which Lease Agreement was later reformed into Tribal Title Deed for five and a half lots which was executed by Chief Ciafa Jaleiba, Janoka Balafonde et al. under the 1931 Deed, clearly demonstrates how well Informant Hawah KaizoluWahab’s acquisition of the five and half lots is plagued, by subtle and fraudulent designs. In that fraud is the obtaining of a material advantage by unfair or wrongful means; it involves moral obliquity. It must be proved to sustain the common 1 aw action of deceit. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (1) Knowingly or (2) without belief in its truth, or (3) recklessly and carelessly, whether it be true or false. Respondents therefore submit that informant’s petition before the Civil Law Court that Judge Lewis passed upon set forth substantially that “in her Petition she alleges that by virtue of her being one of the Vai residents in Vai Town and by virtue of the fact that she has, as other Vai in the same area, improved, developed a certain portion of the land covered by the Deed from the Republic of Liberia to the people of Vai Town through the then Chief, Morve Sonii, she is entitled to the sole possession enjoyment and ownership of the piece of property described in the lease agreement by and between them executed since the 8t h day of June, A. D. 1950 and recorded in volume 63 Pages, 898-899 of the records of Montserrado County.” Here, Informant Hawah Kaizolu-Wahab had settled the right of ownership of the land under the 1931 Deed and not the 1906 Deed. Respondents therefore submit that the fraudulent Deed of 1931 which was that creator of Hawah Kaizolu-Wahab creature Tribal Title Deed having being canceled by the judgment of this Honorable Court, all other antecedent instruments such as the Hawah Kaizolu-Wahab’s Tribal Title Deed and/or its remnants died and was buried with its fraudulent creator the 1931 purported Deed, on July 29, 1988 by Your Honours judgment. It must be understood that Judge Lewis had no authority to pass title to Hawah Kaizolu-Wahab on the basis of ethnicity and/or out of a fraudulent deed.
COUNT 3. And also because respondents further answering say that the opinion of this Court as reported in 17LLR, page 105, Syl. 6, text at 114, which Informant relied on as being the basis of the genius of her title to the five and half lots grew out of a lease agreement that was entered by and between Varmuyah Corneh et al. and informant on June 8 1950, which lease agreement also became the off-spring of the 1931 fraudulent deed allegedly obtained by Morve Sonii, Varmuyah Corneh and all those claiming under the Aborigine Grant Deed of 1931. It follows therefore that at the time the Opinion in 17 LLR was delivered and judgment thereon handed down, neither Judge Lewis nor Justice Mitchell or the entire Supreme Court knew in 1964 that More Sonii, Varmuyah Corneh et al. had obtained the 1931 Aborigine Grant Deed they all along arrogated by fraudulent means. Respondents contend that it is of great importance that courts should be free from reproach or suspicion of unfairness. The party may be interested only that his particular suit should be justly determined, but the state and the community is concerned not only for that, but that the judiciary shall enjoy an elevated rank in the estimation of mankind.
The party who desired it might be permitted to take the hazard of a biased decision, if he alone were to suffer his folly, but the state cannot endure the scandal and reproach which would be visited upon its judiciary in consequence. Although the party consents, he will invariably murmur if he does not gain his cause; and the very man who induced the judge to act whom he should have forborne will be the first to arraign his decision as biased and unjust. Respondents hold therefore that the opinion of 1964 reported in 17LLR, page 105, that gave support to Informant’s Tribal Title Deed, that grew out of the fraudulent deed of 1931 which the July 29, 1988 Judgment of Your Honours canceled. This therefore demonstrates the scandal that party litigants often bring upon the judiciary the world over, when their misleading pleadings induced a Judge to make a bias decision. Respondents submit that the facts the 1931 Aborigine Grant Deed fraudulent acquisition having been made known to your Honors, which necessitated its cancellation, can Your Honors set aside Your Honours’ judgment of July 29, 1988, elude said judgment which informant wants you to do, and give recognition to Informant’s spurious Tribal Title Deed which is the off-spring of the 1931 deed. Respondents say that Your Honours are men of discernible judgment and wisdom, and pray that this Court having been misled by the informant then appellant in the writ of error proceedings reported in 17LLR and informant even now still bent on misleading Your Honours. Your Honours should deny the granting of the bill of information and have the writ vacated.
COUNT 4. Respondents say that further to count three, the doctrine of res judicata becomes extremely applicable in this case, in that, the cancellation filed against Morve Sonii, Varmuyah Corneh et al., that were claiming under the 1931 fraudulent deed, she being one of one of these that were claiming title to the 25 acres portion thereof under the 1931 Deed. See Judge Lewis’ final judgment, photo copy of which is attached and marked respondents’ exhibit “CMD/2P” to form part of those returns. For the benefit of this Court we quote the authorities of res judicata as they are relevant to this case. “A matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by a judgment a thing definitely settled by judicial decision; the thing adjudged.” 34 CLC 1966, Res judicata; res adjudicata. `The doctrine of res judicata or estoppel by judgment, as it is sometimes less accurately termed, is a rule of law founded on the soundest consideration of public policy. It means of the question to be discussed between the parties and a final judgment be obtained by either party, the parties are concluded, and cannot canvass the same question in another action. It is founded upon two maxims of the law, one of which is that a man should not be twice vexed for the same cause the other that is for the public good that there be an end of litigation. . . .’ Wisconsin v. Torinus,.28 Minn. 175, 179; N.W. 725 ,726 (1881). It follows therefore that the July 29 1988, Judgment having concluded the rights of all those that were claiming title under the 1931 Aborigine Grant Deed which Informant Hawah Kaizolu-Wahab is one, she cannot reopen this case by bill of information. Count three must therefore crumble.
COUNT 5. And also because respondents say that count four being analogous to count three, same should be dismissed.
COUNT 6. And also because respondents further say that count five of the information lacks any legal efficacy and/or nationality, in that, at no time Boima Lartey and Alhaji J.D. Lassanna et al. were aware of informant being possessed with any Tribal Title Deed, nor were the respondents aware of the existence of such deed until when informant and others filed a Petition for a writ of prohibition before the Chambers of Justice Jangaba, which Your Honours revoked before respondents got to know that informant had purportedly obtained a tribal Title Deed under such fraudulent means from Varmuyah Corneh et al. Respondents submit that with regard to not making Informant Hawah Kaizolu-Wahab a party to the ejectment suit, respondents maintain meticulous law suit against Morve Sonii, Varmuyah Corneh and all those that were claiming under the 1931 Aborigines Grant Deed. Informant in those proceedings having therefore obtained her alleged title from Varmuyah Corneh et al., she by inference became a party to the cancellation proceedings filed by the Republic of Liberia, by & thru the Minister of Justice, Honourable Jenkins K. Z. B. Scott. Count five should therefore crumble.
COUNT 7. And also because respondents say that Count Six of the Information relating to the ejectment suit pending before this Court as raised by tho informant can no longer be entertained, in that, the legitimate ownership of the 25 across of land having been established by the Republic of Liberia, the grantor to Chief Murphy of the 25 acres, all those that were claiming under the 1931 Aborigines Grant Deed are subject to criminal evacuation, they being criminal trespassers on respondents’ 25 acres of land as of July 29, 1988, when this Honourable Court handed its judgment. Count five should therefore be dismissed.
COUNT 8. And also because respondents say that Count Six of the Information being in substance the same as Count Five, and the July 299 1988, judgment of the Supreme Court of Liberia which canceled the 1931 Deed which judgment concluded the rights of all those that were claiming under the 1931 deed, Informant Hawah Kaizolu-Wahab has no exceptional rights nor can she be considered a privilege child to be excluded from criminal evacuation, for informant obtained five and half lots from her alleged grantors through the same fraudulent means, and since the grantor has become a perishable good and now laid at the bottom of the sea, the grantee cannot survive the judicial decision of this Court which brought the case to finality in July 29, 1988. Count six must therefore be dismissed.
COUNT 9. And also because Respondents say that count seven of the information is fatally deceptive and transcended the maxim of equity, which is righteousness, in that, never has there been a time when Chief Murphy or any of his heirs ever issued any instrument be it a lease agreement to Hawah Kaizolu-Wahab, or much more, a Tribal Title Deed to her, the informant. Therefore, informant claimed at this stage that her spurious deed “grows” out of the 1906 Deed is very delusive for which count seven must crumble, same being clumsy.
COUNT 10. And also because respondents say that Hawah Kaizolu-Wahab, the mere fact obtained her alleged Tribal Title Deed from the 1931 Deed of Morve Sonii, Varmuyah Corneh and all those that were claiming under the 1931 Deed, by implication of alleged title, became a party to the Suit filed by the Republic of Liberia, she should have been the one to have filed a motion to intervene and/or join her grantors and assert the genuineness or otherwise of her title. She have neglected to so do, she cannot medicate her silence by Bill on Information in the Supreme Court. She is therefore estopped. Count eight must therefore be dismissed.
COUNT 11. And also because respondents say that informant is criminally trespassing and unlawfully withholding the five and a half lots, her fraudulent title having derived its strength and origin from the 1931 Deed that had been canceled on July 29, 1988,/by this Honourable Court.
Count nine must therefore be dismissed and informant be made to pay costs of these proceedings.
The contention of informant as contained in the bill of information is that informant is one of the decedents and/or heirs of the decedents of Vey Town (Vey John’s people) who were residents of Bushrod Island in the area now known as Vai Town, to whom the Republic of Liberia, during the incumbency of President Arthur Barclay as President of Liberia, in the year 1906, executed an Aborigine Grant Deed to Chief Murphy and tho Residents of Vey Town (Vey John’s people). According to informant, during the September A.D. 1964 Term of the Civil Law Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, with His Honour Judge Roderick Lewis presiding by assignment, the said judge entered a final decree in favor of informant, whereby the court reformed the lease agreement executed by and between Chief Ciaffa Jaleiba et al. into a Tribal Title Deed for five and a half (51/2) lots, which was signed on June 8, 1950 by tho said Chief Ciaffa Jaleiba, Chief of Vai Town, Janoka Balonfonde and Sekou Sonii et al. as grantors to informant Hawah Kaizolu-Wahab as grantee, and the court’s final decree entered on the 27 th day of October, A. D. 1964.
According to informant, in the case Republic of Liberia, v. Sonii et al.[1988] LRSC 43; , 35 LLR 126 (1988), a case styled as a bill of equity for cancellation of public land sale deed of 1931 for 25 acres of land situated in the Bushrod Island area, which was instituted in the civil law court and finally determined by this Court, informant was not a party directly or indirectly to said action, either as plaintiff or respondent, nor was she summoned nor did she voluntarily appear in the proceedings. The reason being the informant holds a genuine title deed for five and a half lots carved out of the 25 acres of land, which has not been contested or attacked in any court in this Republic.
Informant further contended that because of the ruling of Judge Badio in the cancellation proceedings decided by this Court during the March, A. D. 1988 Term, the sheriff of Montserrado County is compelling the tenants of informant to pay the rents due her to him, to be held in escrow as in keeping with Judge Badio’s ruling.
From the foregoing the following issues are pertinent in the determination of this case by this Court:
1. Whether or not the informant is bound by the judgment of this Court rendered in the cancellation proceedings dated July 29, 1988; and
2. Whether or not Judge Pearson proceeding in the civil law court for Montserrado County went contrary to the mandate of this Court for which an information will lie.
Regarding the first issue, as to whether or not informant is bound by our judgment rendered in the cancellation proceedings on July 29, 1980, we must first of all take recourse to our legal authorities to determine who is bound by the judgment of a court.
According to the case Gbae et al. v. Gbeby[1960] LRSC 50; , 14 LLR 147 (1960), this Court held that “a judgment is not binding upon a party who has neither been duly cited to appear before the court nor afforded an opportunity to be heard.” Authority further hold that , “[a] stranger, within the rule that a judgment is not binding or conclusive on a stranger to the litigation, is a person who is not a party, or in privity with, or represented by, a party, and who has not been served with process and does not by actual intervention bring himself within the litigation.” 50 C.J.S. §820 at 383.
Respondents have not denied that informant was not a party in the cancellation proceedings nor was she served with any process in connection with the proceedings to bring her under the jurisdiction of the court. However, respondents maintained that the five and a half lots for which informant holds a title deed was fraudulently carved out of the 25 acres of land covered by the 1931 deed recently ordered canceled by this Court during the March 1988 Term; and that because informant is one of those claiming under the 1931 deed, by virtue of the cancellation of said deed, she had been brought under the jurisdiction of the court during the proceedings. Therefore, the judgment of this Court under the principle of res judicata binds her.
Res judicata is defined as “the principle that an existing final judgment rendered upon the merits without fraud or collusion, by competent court of jurisdiction is conclusive of rights, questions and facts in issue as to the parties and their privies, in all other action in the same or any other judicial tribunal or of concurrent jurisdiction.” BALLENTINE’ S’ S LAW DICTIONARY 1105 (3rd ed.)
In the instant case, there is no showing that informant was personally served with precept during the cancellation proceedings before the Civil Law Court for Montserrado County, nor is there any showing that she was represented by a counsel since the judgment would have had the tendency to affect her interest.
Our statute on joinder of parties, Civil Procedure Law, Rev. Code 1:5.51, When joinder required, states: “1. Parties who should be joined: Persons: (a) who ought to be parties to an action if complete relief is to be accorded between the persons who are parties to such action, or (b) who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in such action shall be made plaintiffs or defendants therein.” Regarding compulsory joinder, it is provided that: “When a person who should join as a plaintiff refuses to do so, he may be made a defendant, or in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff. When a person who should be joined according to the provisions of paragraph 1 has not been made a party and is subject to the jurisdiction of the court, the court shall order him summoned to appear in the action.” Civil Procedure Law, Rev. Code 1:5.51(2). Under the provisions of Civil Procedure Law, Rev. Code 1:5.55, As to defendants, the code states, “All persons may be joined in one action as defendants against whom there is asserted jointly, severally, or in the alternative any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences if any question of law or fact common to all of them would arise in the action.”
In keeping with the laws cited, there being no evidence that informant was a party in the cancellation proceedings, nor was she cited or summoned to appear in the action, we are of the opinion that she is not bound by our judgment in the said cancellation proceedings.
Regarding the next issue, as to whether or not Judge Pearson of the Civil Law Court to whom the mandate of this court in the cancellation proceedings was directed, went contrary to the mandate from this Court, we hold in the affirmative. According to informant, she was not a party directly or indirectly in the cancellation proceedings, yet, when the mandate from this Court was sent to the Civil Law Court, Montserrado County, the sheriff for Montserrado County undertook to compel the tenants of informant to pay rents due her to him, to be held in escrow as in keeping with Judge Badio’s ruling, contrary to our mandate, because the said mandate makes no mention of any rents or its collection from any tenants by the sheriff of Montserrado County, since under our practice ‘and procedure, cancellation proceeding does not concern itself with collection of rents. For the benefit of this opinion, we hereunder quote verbatim our judgment as well as the mandate sent to the Civil Law Court of Montserrado County:
Republic of Liberia, by & thru the Minister of Justice, Honorable Jenkins K. Z. B. Scott v. Morve Sone, Varmuyah Corneh, et al.
JUDGMENT
At the call of this case, Counsellor Varney Sherman represented the Appellants while the Ministry of Justice represented the Appellee.
After listening to arguments from both sides and having perused the records and applied the relevant laws, it is hereby
ADJUDGED
That the Judgment of the court below granting the Petition for Cancellation of the 1931 Aborigine Grant Deed for 25 acres in favor of Appellants should be and the same is hereby affirmed ”
The Clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to send a Mandate to the 6t h Judicial Circuit Court, Montserrado County, instructing the presiding judge therein to resume jurisdiction in this case and enforce its judgment. Costs ruled against Appellants. And it is so ordered.
GIVEN UNDER OUR HANDS AND THE
SEAL OF THE HONORABLE SUPREME
COURT THIS 29TH OF JULY, A. D. 1988.
NOTE: Mr. Justice Azango not being present when this case was heard, did not sign this Judgment.”
MANDATE
IN THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA MARCH, A. D. 1988 TERM. TO: THE ASSIGNED CIRCUIT JUDGE, CIVIL LAW COURT, SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT MONTSER-RADO COUNTY, MONROVIA
GREETINGS:
In keeping with instruction of the Honorable Supreme Court of the Republic of Liberia, I have the honor to transmit the accompanying certified copy of the Judgment handed down by this honorable Court, on the 29th day of July, A..D. 1988, in the case:
Republic of Liberia by & thru the Minister of Justice, Honourable Jenkins K. Z. B. Scott, appellee, versus Morve Sone, Varmuyah Corneh and all those claiming under the Aborigines Deed of 1931, appellants
You are hereby commanded to execute tho foregoing Judgment immediately and file your RETURNS to this Mandate, as to how it was executed.’ AND FOR SO DOING, THIS SHALL BE YOUR LEGAL SUFFICIENT AUTHORITY.”
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND THE SEAL
OF THIS COURT THIS 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, A. D. 1988.
Emily N. Badio, \
ACTING CLERK, SUPREME COURT OF LIBERIA.
“Mandate” is defined as follows:
“A command, order or direction, written or oral which court is authorized to give and person is bound to obey, a judicial command and precept proceeding from a court or judicial officer directing the proper officer to enforce a judgment, sentence or decree.”
“A precept or order issue upon decision of an appeal or writ of error, directing action to be taken, or disposition to be made of a case by inferior court.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1114 (4t h ed.).
From what we have narrated, it can be clearly seen that Judge Pearson went contrary to our mandate and therefore the act of the sheriff whereby he collected or solicited rentals from informant’s tenants to be kept in escrow must be declared ultra vires and void ab initio.
WHEREFORE, it is our considered opinion that the bill of information should be, and the same is hereby granted.
The Clerk of this Court is therefore ordered to send a mandate to the Civil Law Court for Montserrado County, and the judge presiding therein to resume jurisdiction over this matter, ordering the Ministry of Lands, Mines & Energy to conduct a survey, demarcating the metes and bounds of the 25 acres land as contained in the 1906 Deed executed by President Arthur Barclay in favor of Chief Murphy et al of Vai Town, Bushrod Island, Monrovia, Liberia, thereby giving effect to this judgment. Costs disallowed. And it is so ordered.
Information granted.