BOIMA LARTEY, ALHAJI J. D. LANSANAH, MUSA FONJEH, FRIMA KAMARA, TETEE OF MANDO, et al., Surviving Heirs, Descendants, and People of CHIEF MURPHEY AND VAI JOHN, Deceased, of Vai Town, Bushrod Island, Monrovia, Appellants, v. His Honor, JAMES W. HUNTER,

Assigned Judge Presiding over the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, Sitting in its Law Term, September 1963, and JOSEPH F. DENNIS, Counsellor at Law, Appellees. APPEAL FROM RULING IN CHAMBERS ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI. Argued April 18, 1966. Decided July 1, 1966. The Supreme Court will not pass upon issues of law raised for the first time before that Court by intervenors. In connection with the ejectment action reported supra at [1966] LRSC 44; 17 L.L.R. 403, appellants instituted an injunction action in the circuit court and subsequently applied to the Justice presiding in Chambers for a writ of certiorari directed to the judge presiding over the injunction action. The application for certiorari was dismissed on the ground that the real parties in interest were not named as respondents. On appeal from the ruling in Chambers dismissing the application for certiorari, the real parties in interest moved to intervene, which motion was granted by the full Court. The intervening appellants then raised issues which had not been ruled upon in the hearing in Chambers. In order to allow these issues to be passed upon, the ruling was remanded to’ Chambers. Barclay Law Firm for appellants. Morgan, Grimes and Harmon Law Firm for appellees. 432 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS MR. JUSTICE SIMPSON 433 delivered the opinion of the Court. The present case has come up to this Court on appeal from a ruling of Mr. Justice Mitchell presiding in Chambers. It appears that an action of injunction was filed in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, by Boima Lartey et al. against Alhaji Varmuyah Corneh et al. dated the 18th day of September, 1963, as reported supra, at [1966] LRSC 19; 17 L.L.R. 268. Additionally, there was a certain interlocutory ruling of the trial judge, His Honor James W. Hunter, which in the estimation of petitioners in Chambers was prejudicially erroneous. In consequence thereof, an application was made to the Chambers Justice for the issuance of an alternative writ of certiorari to be subsequently made absolute. Quite strangely, the alternative writ named as respondents the assigned judge and the counsel for defendants in the court below, entirely omitting to mention the real parties in interest. Thereupon, the counsel for the said defendants, then a respondent, in obedience to the writ of certiorari, filed returns thereto. He specifically mentioned that the process had been inadvertently issued and served on him and therefore requested that it be quashed as against him. The Chambers Justice in ruling on the application for the issuance of the writ of certiorari, held that the returns of Counsellor Joseph F. Dennis, of counsel for the defendant in the court below, was well taken ; for if he had interfered with the proceedings, this interference should have subjected him to contempt proceedings; but under no circumstances could he involuntarily be made a party in the present proceedings. This action of the presiding justice in ordering the writ quashed as to Counsellor Dennis left only one respondent in the certiorari proceedings in the person of the assigned circuit judge, since the petitioners in certiorari had, as 434 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS stated supra, omitted to include the real parties in interest. The outcome of the proceedings before the Chambers Justice was a ruling perpetuating the alternative writ previously issued. Subsequently there was an appeal taken to this Court en banc for a joint review of the determination made by the Justice presiding in Chambers. During the October 1965 term of this Honorable Court, a motion to intervene was filed by Alhaji Varmuyah Corneh, attorney in fact for the people and tribal authority of Vai Town, and Sundifoo Soni, Paramount Chief of Vai Town, predicated upon the fact that although they were partiesdefendant in the lower court when the application for the writ of certiorari was made before the Chambers Justice, their names were not included. This, in their view, constituted a deprivation of their day in Court as the law allows. There was a resistance to this motion and a subsequent ruling thereon by the Court, sitting en banc, granting the motion and permitting the movants to be joined as parties appellants in the cause before the full Court. During the present term of Court, the intervenors, now appellants, filed returns in response to the application for the alternative writ. However, there were several cogent issues of law raised in these returns which had not been previously heard or ruled upon by the Chambers Justice. It is therefore a determination of this Court that it would be unfair to pass upon these issues as raised in the returns since, in effect, the doing of this by the full Court would not constitute a specific review of the ruling of our colleague whilst sitting in Chambers. Predicated upon the above and in the interest of transparent justice, it is the determination of this Court that this case be remanded to the Chambers of the Justice presiding in Chambers at the October r966 term of this Honorable Court, so as to afford all of the appellants an opportunity of being heard in accordance with the re- LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 435 quirements of law. Costs in these proceedings are to abide final determination of this case. And it is hereby so ordered. Ruling remanded to Chambers.