LIBERIA PETROLEUM REFINING COMPANY, Appellant/Respondent, v. JONATHAN WILLIAMS, Appellee/Movant.

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL FROM THE NATIONAL LABOUR COURT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY.

Heard: December 6, 1989. Decided: January 9, 1990.

1. A neglect to file an approved bill of exceptions and an approved appeal bond will result in a dismissal of the appeal upon motion properly made.

2. When there is no approved bill of exceptions found in the records, the appeal will be dismissed.

3. When an appellant has failed to file an approved appeal bond within the statutorily prescribed period of time, a motion to dismiss the appeal will be granted.

4. When no bill of exceptions, appeal bond or notice of the completion of the appeal has been filed within the statutorily prescribed period of time, the appeal must be dis-missed.

5. An appeal may be dismissed for failure to file an approved bill of exceptions within the statutory period of time.

6. Where the statutory prescribed requisites for completion of an appeal are not complied with, the appeal will be dismissed.

7. An appeal will be dismissed when the notice of appeal and bill of exceptions are not filed within the statutory time limit.

The appellee filed a complaint before the Ministry of Labour against the appellant and judgment was entered in favor of appellee awarding him the sum of $24,650.00. The appellant excepted to the judgment and announced an appeal to the National Labour Court. The National Labour Court heard the appeal and entered final judgment in favor of the appellee, thereby affirming the judgment of the hearing officer of the Ministry of Labour. The appellant’s counsel not being present, the court appointed counsel for appellant, who excepted to the said final judgment and announced an appeal to the Honourable Supreme Court. Despite the announcement of appeal, the appellant failed and neglected to perfect its appeal by filing a bill of exceptions within ten (10) days, and by filing an approved appeal bond and notice of the completion of the appeal within sixty days, as required by law.

When the appeal was called for hearing, the Court’s attention was called to a motion filed by appellee to dismiss the appellant’s appeal for the failure of said appellant to perfect its appeal in keeping with statutory provisions governing appeals. The counsel for appellant conceded the legal soundness of the points raised in the motion to dismiss and interposed no resistance to said motion. The Honourable Supreme Court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal.

Clarence Dixon of Brumskine & Brumskine Law Firm appeared for the appellant. Jonathan Williams appeared for the appellee.

MR. JUSTICE AZANGO delivered the opinion of the Court.

When this case was called for hearing, our attention was called to appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal before Court on the grounds, as follows:

1. Because appellee says that on the 27thday of August, A.D. 1987, His Honour Arthur K. Williams, Resident Judge of the National Labor Court presiding by assignment over the August Term of the National Labour Court, Montserrado County, entered final judgment in favour of the appellee.

2. That the court-appointed counsel for appellant excepted to the said final judgment of the court below and announced an appeal to this Honourable Court, sitting in its October, 1987 Term. That because counsel for defendant/appellant below denied receipt of service ten (10) weeks after the said ruling, two (2) separate copies of the said ruling were served on the appellant on the 26thday of October, 1987 day of October, 1987 and 27

3. That appellant neglected and failed to file its bill of exceptions within ten (10) days as provided by statute as can be more fully seen from the clerk’s certificate. Subsequently, on the 21st day of December 1987, appellant filed a bill of exceptions which was approved by the trial judge.

4. That the appellant has failed and neglected to perfect the process of the appeal by filing an approved appeal bond or serving notice of completion of appeal within the statutory time of sixty (60) days after final judgment. Movant/appellee therefore obtained a clerk’s certificate and sheriffs certificate. For reliance appellee cite Civil Procedure Law, Rev. Code 1:51.16.

Counsel for respondent, upon reading of the motion to dismiss in open court, conceded the legal soundness of the points raised in the said motion and interposed no resistance thereto.

This court has forever and anon held that:

1. A neglect to file an approved bill of exceptions and an approved appeal bond will result in a dismissal of the appeal upon motion properly made. King et al. v. King[1941] LRSC 19; , 7 LLR 301 (1941).

2. Where there is no approved bill of exceptions found in the record, the appeal will be dismissed. Kennedy et al. v. Pearson[1943] LRSC 5; , 8 LLR 123 (1943).

3. When an appellant has failed to file an approved appeal bond within the statutorily prescribed period of time, a motion to dismiss the appeal will be granted. Smythe v. Mends-Cole, 13 LLR 81 (1957).

4. When neither a bill of exceptions nor an appeal bond nor a notice of completion of appeal has been filed within the statutorily prescribed period of time, the appeal must be dismissed. Benson v. Togba, 13 LLR 345 (1959).

5. An appeal may be dismissed for failure to file an approved bill of exceptions within the statutory period of time. Wright v. Richards, 13 LLR 451 (1960).

6. Where the statutorily prescribed requisites for completion of an appeal are not complied with, the appeal will be dismissed. Findley v. Republic, 13 LLR 538 (1960).

7. An appeal will be dismissed when the notice of appeal and bill of exceptions are not filed within the statutory time limits. Brooks v. Republic, [1951] LRSC 10; 11 LLR 3 (1951).

Wherefore, and in view of the foregoing facts, circumstances, and the law controlling, the motion to dismiss is hereby granted.

The Clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to send a mandate to the court below with instructions that it should resume jurisdiction and enforce the judgment, which confirmed and affirmed the ruling of the hearing officer, awarding appellee (complainant before the hearing officer) the sum of twenty-four thousand six hundred fifty dollars ($24,650.00). Costs are ruled against the Liberian Petroleum Refining Company, appellant. And it is hereby so ordered.

Motion granted; appeal dismissed.