ESTHER ETHEL MASSAQUOI, Movant, v. DASIA MASSAQUOI, Respondent.
MOTION FOR RE-ARGUMENT.
Heard: June 6, 1989. Decided: July 14, 1989.
1. For good cause shown to the Court by petition, a re-argument of a cause may be allowed when some palpable mistake is made by inadvertently overlooking some fact or point of law.
The Supreme Court, during its October 1988 Term, handed down an opinion and judgment in a bill of information growing out of a petition before the Monthly and Probate Court for Montserrado County for revocation of letters testamentary. The bill of information was denied and thereafter, within statutory time, the informant moved the Supreme Court for re-argument. The motion, having been ordered docketed by a concurring Justice, was brought before the Supreme Court for argument during its March 1989 Term.
After entertaining arguments on the motion and the resistance, and perusing the records, the Supreme Court opined that it failed to see the legal basis for the movant’s motion for re-argument. The Court ruled that the motion did not clearly state any ground for re-argument and, that to warrant the granting of a motion for re-argument, it must be clearly shown that the Court had inadvertently overlooked some legal issues urged and argued by movant in his bill of exceptions and brief but overlooked by the Court in the determination of such matter. As this was not the situation in the instant case, the Court denied the motion with costs against the movant.
Julia F. Gibson for the movant. Joseph Findley for the respondent.
MR. JUSTICE BELLEH delivered the opinion of the Court.
During the October Term of this Court, A, D. 1988, in our opinion handed down and our judgment read in open Court on the 29th day of December, A. D. 1988, in the case Massaquoi v. Massaquoi, 35 LLR (1988), we denied informant’s bill of information and ordered the Clerk of this Court to send a mandate to the Monthly and Probate Court for Montserrado County with instructions to the judge presiding therein to resume jurisdiction over the case, that is to say “Revocation of Letters Testamentary,” out of which the bill of information grows.
To offset and prevent the enforcement of the said judgment of this Court against informant in said proceeding, a motion for re-argument attested by our distinguished colleague, Mr. Justice Azango, who was one of the concurring Justices, was filed within legal time by movant. In the motion, the movant claimed inadvertent omission on the part of this Court to have passed upon certain salient points raised in the bill of information and alleged that this palpable omission rendered injustice to them and denied them of the benefits which a fair and impartial trial entitled them to.
For the benefit of this opinion, we hereunder quote word for word counts 1, 2., 3, 4, and 5 of the movant’s motion for re-argument:
“1. Your movant says that the reason for filing this motion is to clarify the intent of the information recently decided by this Honourable Court.
2. That the information now under consideration was not intended to employ delay tactics and to introduce at the Supreme Court level evidence regarding fraud, which was employed by appellant/respondent; rather it was only to bring to the attention of this Court of last resort that the case Dasia Massaquoi versus Esther Ethel Massaquoi from its very beginning is based on deception and fraud which was pleaded in the court below. And that it was not possible to obtain the evidence before the ruling of the judge of the court below.
3. Your movant kindly request that Your Honours will permit the parties to replead; since indeed and in truth she honestly believes this issue was inadvertently overlooked.
4. Your movant further states that she has kindly requested Your Honours to have the evidence form part of the records in the court below so that when the case of fraud is called in the Civil Law Court, she will not be guilty of !aches and that such evidence would be admitted in order to prove the fraudulent acts which appellant/respondent has tried to perpetrate on not only movant, but also on the judiciary; since said evidence was not available within the time specified for movant/respondent to make her returns to the petition in the court below.”
5. Wherefore and in view of the foregoing, movant prays that Your Honours will take a closer look at the information and cause the evidence to form part of the records when the case of fraud comes up in the court below.”
The motion for re-argument was resisted by respondent in one count, which we hereunder quote word for word for the benefit of this opinion:
“1. Because the motion does not state any legal ground for reargument. Re-argument means that this Honourable Court has inadvertently overlooked some legal issue urged and argued by movant in its/his/her bill of exceptions and brief but overlooked by the Court in the determination of said issue. Not only is this not true in this case that this Honourable Court inadvertently overlooked any issue as such but the motion does not contain any averment to that effect. The motion is therefore sympathetically, palpably and unfortunately without any legal backing and should be denied.”
To grant re-argument of a case reviewed and determined by this Court, the following must be raised, pleaded and established by the record of the trial of this Court:
“For good cause shown to the Court by petition, a re-argument of a cause may be allowed when some palpable mistake is made by inadvertently overlooking some fact or point of law.”
A petition for rehearing shall be presented within three days after the filing of the opinion, unless in cases of special leave granted by the Court.”
The petition shall contain a brief and distinct statement of the grounds upon which it is based, and shall not be heard unless a Justice concurring in the judgment shall order it. The moving party shall serve a copy thereof upon the adverse party as provided by the rules relating to motions.” Rule IX, Revised Supreme Court Rules (1972)
We fail to see the legal basis for the movant’s motion for re-argument, in that the motion does not clearly state any ground for re-argument. As we have earlier stated in this opinion, to warrant the granting of a motion for re-argument, it must be clearly shown that this Honourable Court has inadvertently overlooked some legal issue urged and argued by movant in his/her bill of exceptions and brief, but that the same was over-looked by the Court in the determination of the case. In the instant case, not only is this not true that this Honourable Court inadvertently overlooked any issue, but the motion does not contain any averment to that effect.
Count three of the motion “requests this Court to permit the parties to replead, since indeed and in truth she honestly believes this issue was inadvertently overlooked.” In the case Webster et al. v. Freeman et al.[1965] LRSC 5; , 16 LLR 209 (1965), this Court held that “re-argument will be allowed only when the Court has made some palpable mistake by overlooking some fact or point of law.”
The opinion of this Court handed down at its October Term, A. D. 1988 was in harmony with the law. It not having been sufficiently established that any issue of law or fact was omitted in this Court’s consideration of the issues advanced at the trial, a re-argument of this case is without justification; hence, the motion praying for same is hereby denied with costs against movant. And it is so ordered.
Motion for re-argument denied.