SCHULMAN-HATFIELD-MARSON-GENS, by THOMAS P. CORONIS, Project Manager, Appellants, v. ALHAJI VERMUYAH CORNEH, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY. Argued April 2, 1962. Decided June 1, 1962. When an appellant has failed to complete the statutorily prescribed requisites for perfection of an appeal, the Supreme Court will grant a motion to direct the court below to resume jurisdiction and enforce its judgment. Following appellants’ failure to appear at the hearing of the case on appeal, the Supreme Court, on motion of appellee, ordered the court below to resume jurisdiction and enforce its judgment on the ground that appellants had failed to file an appeal bond within the prescribed period of time. No appearance for appellant. lee. MR. JUSTICE MITCHELL J. F. Dennis for appel- delivered the opinion of the Court. On March 27, 1962, Counsellor Joseph F. Dennis, of counsel for the above-named appellee, filed an application for the Court’s consideration, entitled: “Appellee’s Application for Order of Court to Trial Court to Resume Jurisdiction and Enforce Judgment.” The body of this application reads, word for word, as follows: “Alhaji Vermuyah Corneh, appellee in the aboveentitled cause, respectfully applies to this Court for the issuance of an order to the trial court to resume 57 58 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS jurisdiction and enforce its judgment, for the following reasons, to wit: . Because the final judgment in the said cause, from which the appellants announced an appeal to this Court, was rendered on January 8, 1962, but appellants have filed only their bill of exceptions, and have not yet filed an appeal bond as the law requires, as will more fully appear from a copy of certificate issued by the clerk of the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, hereto annexed and marked Exhibit A to form a part of this application. Appellee submits that, although said appeal bond should have been filed within 6o days after rendition of the final judgment as a further step towards the perfection of the appeal, 18 additional days have now gone by, making a total of 78 days since the rendition of the said judgment, quite contrary to the law governing appeals. 2. And also, because of the foregoing, appellants have failed to have perfected their appeal by taking all of the jurisdictional steps prescribed by law. Therefore this Court cannot entertain the said appeal, and such act is tantamount to a waiver of appellants’ right to have said appeal heard by this Court.” When the case was assigned for a hearing of the aforesaid application, Counsellor C. L. Simpson of the Simpson Law Firm, of counsel for the appellants in the court below, was present in Court and knew of the same; but when the case was called, neither he nor a representative from the firm appeared, nor was the appellant present in person. Although it is not customary, according to our court practice, to delay the hearing of matters when they are regularly assigned, yet the Court anticipated that counsel, knowing of the assignment, would appear and answer for ” LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 59 his lateness–hence a few minutes of indulgence were allowed ; after which there was no alternative other than to proceed with the hearing of the application; and appellee’s counsel proceeded to argue in support of his application. We have taken the time to include the-grounds of the application in this opinion, regardless of the fact that there are so many opinions of this Court predicated upon the same grounds, because we want to emphasize that courts are not authorized to do for parties in litigation that which is incumbent upon them to do for themselves in strictly conforming to the statutes in such cases made and provided. Our statute provides as follows: “When the defendant appeals, he or his counsel shall perform the following acts to perfect the appeal within the sixty-day period : “(c) Within ten days after rendition of judgment he shall tender a bill of exceptions to the judge for his approval and signature; “(d) He shall file with the clerk of the court the bill of exceptions signed by the judge and an appeal bond approved by the judge.” 1956 Code, tit. 8, � 373� The law does not make a closing point there, but also specifies the following grounds for the dismissal of an appeal from a court of record : ” ( a) failure to file an approved bill of exceptions within the time specified in section 373 “(b) failure to file an approved appeal bond or material defect in such bond ; ” (c) failure to have notice of appeal served on appellee; or “(d) non-appearance of the appellant on appeal.” 1956 Code, tit. 8, � 380. 60 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS In this case, there was no necessity for appellants to appear, since they had not completed the jurisdictional steps required by statute, and had deliberately failed to file their appeal bond within the time prescribed by law, which failure is an incurable blunder. It is obvious that the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case when appellants formally announced an appeal to this Court. Therefore, the court below was without legal competence to resume further jurisdiction over the matter without a mandate from this Court. When jurisdictional requirements for completion of an appeal are wanting, the appeal will be dismissed. It follows that this appellee’s application should be, and it is hereby granted, and the clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to send a mandate to the court below ordering it to resume jurisdiction and enforce its judgment. And it is hereby so ordered. Motion granted.