HON. D. W. B. MORRIS, resident Circuit Judge, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, JOHN B. P. MORRIS, Clerk, Sixth Judicial Circuit, JAMES W. BROWN, Sheriff, Montserrado County, and all persons acting directly or indirectly under their authority, and JOHN F. KHOURY, Appellants, v. BEN CHERIF MOHAMED, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM RULING OF JUSTICE IN CHAMBERS ISSUING WRIT OF PROHIBITION TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY. Argued October 28, 1968. Decided February 7, 1969. 1. A resident judge of a Judicial Circuit until regularly assigned by the Chief Justice, or otherwise expressly empowered by the Chief Justice, is without authority to perform any judicial act within that Judicial Circuit or any other Judicial Circuit, except during the sine die adjournment of the Judicial Circuit of which he is the resident judge. A court cannot acquire jurisdiction over persons or the subject of their litigation where the judge in the case has no legal authority to act. Where a court is without jurisdiction in a case, its proceedings are void and not merely voidable. Where lack of jurisdiction in a case clearly shows, it may be raised by objection at any stage of the proceedings. Though proceedings entertained by a judge are void for want of his authority to act, such as the issuance of writs in the instant case, the cause of action itself may be subsequently heard in the lower court at another term. 2. 3. 4. 5. An action for damages to property was begun by plaintiff in the Sixth Judicial Circuit in the December 1967 Term before the resident presiding judge who had not been duly assigned by the Chief Justice for that term. Nonetheless, the day the action was filed, he ordered a writ of attachment issued, and in the alternative, a writ of arrest of the person of the defendant. A writ of prohibition was sought from the Justice in chambers, who granted the application of the defendant, from which ruling an appeal was taken to the full bench by the respondents in the prohibition proceedings. Ruling affirmed, with the modification that the action for damages 245 246 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS proceed in the lower court, since the action itself had formed no part of the prohibition proceedings. M. M. Perry for appellants. Lawrence A. Morgan for appellee. MR. JUSTICE the court. WARDSWORTH delivered the opinion of Appellants in the above-entitled cause appealed from the ruling of the Justice in chambers against them, appellee having prayed for the issuance of the alternative writ of prohibition which was ordered issued and served by the marshal of the Supreme Court, and a peremptory writ ruled on April 4, 1968. The petition consists of ten counts, of which one to seven, inclusive, we do not regard pertinent to the main issue involved, nor do they warrant our consideration in passing upon the merits of this cause. Counts eight, nine and ten, inclusive, attack the jurisdiction of Hon. D. W. B. Morris, who is alleged to have ordered the issuance of the writ of attachment and the imprisonment of petitioner in case he failed to produce property or file a bond, which acts of the respondent judge the petitioner considers as being illegal and without authority, alleging that he was not assigned by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Liberia as the Presiding Judge over the December 1967 Term of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County. Hence, he acted beyond his jurisdictional powers. We consider this the crux of the case. Counts eight through ten read : “8. That the said respondent, John Khoury, determined to defraud and cheat your petitioner of his property instituted an action of ‘damages for breach of contract’ based upon the very ‘stipulation of sale’ which is the subject of the action of replevin at the LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 247 present time being tried by Hon. John A. Dennis, Circuit Judge, presiding over the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County. He applied for an order of attachment and arrest against petitioner Ben Cherif Mohamed from Hon. D. W. B. Morris, who has no jurisdiction over the Civil Law Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, and whom respondent John Khoury knew very well knew nothing of the pendency of the proceedings before his colleague, Hon. John A. Dennis, which order respondent placed in the hands of the Sheriff on the evening of i3th January, 1968, and instructed him to arrest and imprison the body of Ben Cherif Mohamed unless he should deliver goods to the value of $7,5oo.00 upon the very stipulation of sale by which the said respondents are now in possession of your petitioner’s entire store building and merchandise. (See writ of attachment and arrest, and other documents.) “9. That although Hon. D. W. B. Morris has no jurisdiction over the Civil Law Court at the present time, Hon. John A. Dennis, having jurisdiction by assignment of the Chief Justice, yet the said D. W. B. Morris did issue the order for the attachment of petitioner’s property, and his imprisonment should he fail to produce property to be attached, or file a bond which act is illegal and prejudicial to the interest of petitioner, the said judge having no legal authority to give said orders, as aforesaid. “1o. That no judgment has been rendered in said action of damages nor has your petitioner complied with any ruling of said court, but he verily believes and fears that the respondents herein intend to proceed with the trial and harassment and embarrassment of your petitioner based upon the void and illegal orders of the respondent judge, unless they are prohibited and restrained from so doing.” 248 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS The respondents filed a return thereto consisting of five counts. Count one is the only one we deem worthy of consideration : “I. Because respondents say that the writ as prayed for is improvidently sought because, from an inspection of the petition, it seeks to prohibit the trial and the taking of other legal steps in the damage suit filed in the court below by co-respondent John F. Khoury. Respondents submit that for this court to grant the petition would be unconstitutional. For the action of damages having been filed by co-respondent John F. Khoury, the petitioner having filed a bond in keeping with procedure, and pleadings having been exchanged between the parties in the lower court, for this Court to prohibit further and other steps as prayed for by the petitioner would be denying respondents of their right without due process of law.” It is alleged that the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction at the time of the institution of the action of damages before him. The record from the lower court reveals that this case was begun by plaintiff on January 13, when the complaint was filed and the writ issued upon orders of the respondent judge herein. It is unusual that the respondent judge assumed jurisdiction over the Circuit Court, Sixth Judicial Circuit, when another judge, in the person of Hon. John A. Dennis, had been regularly assigned by Hon. A. Dash Wilson, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Liberia, to conduct the December 1967 Term of the Circuit Court, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, and who by virtue of his assignment was actually presiding over said court when this action was instituted. Plaintiff’s complaint and the writ of attachment were both issued on the same date, that is to say, January 13, 1968, when the December Term of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, presided over by Hon. LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 249 John A. Dennis, opened on the third Monday in December 1967, and adjourned sine die on February 23, 1968. Although the respondent judge is the resident judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, yet, until or unless regularly assigned by the Chief Justice, or during the interim of the sine die adjournment of said court, and/or by special dispensation of the Chief Justice, he is without authority to perform any judicial act within the Judicial Circuit herein referred to, or any other Judicial Circuit within the confines of this Republic, for that matter. As regards respondents’ contention set out in their return, we are concerned principally with the jurisdictional issue as raised by petitioner. “Where a court is without jurisdiction in the premises its acts and proceedings can be of no force or validity, nor can it by its decisions otherwise acquire jurisdiction. This rule applies, even though the court’s powers are thereafter enlarged by an amendment of the law. It is specially applicable when jurisdiction is denied by the Constitution. Again, if a court of special or limited jurisdiction exceeds its powers its proceedings are void and not merely voidable.” II CYC. 702. “All proceedings in a court at a time when the holding of such court is unauthorized by law and its jurisdiction is not exercised within the time prescribed will be void.” II CYC. 728. In Hill v. Republic of Liberia, [1925] LRSC 7; 2 L.L.R. 517 (1925) , at p. 522, it was stated : “Where want of jurisdiction over the cause appears upon the record, it may be taken advantage of by a plea in abatement or objection made to the jurisdiction at any stage of the proceedings; for any act of the court beyond the jurisdiction conferred upon it by law, is null and void. This applies also to courts act- 250 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS ing beyond the limits of the territory within which its powers are to be exercised.” From the argument of appellants’ counsel before us, it is clear that the action of damages was duly filed in the office of the clerk of the Circuit Court, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, on January 13, 1968, in the Law Division, March 1968 Term, before Hon. D. W. B. Morris, resident circuit judge of said court, in ample time for the March 1968 Term. Not being fully apprised of the difference between these two matters, that is to say, the action of damages and the attachment proceedings, the Justice in chambers was persuaded to include the action of damages in his ruling in the prohibition proceedings, in which attachment and arrest were the subject of consideration. In view of the foregoing it is our opinion that the respondent judge was without legal authority to order the issuance of the writs of attachment and arrest, not being the assigned Circuit Judge presiding over the Circuit Court for the December 1967 Term. However, the action of damages having been inadvertently included in the ruling by the Justice in chambers, it is hereby excluded from the provisions and findings of this opinion, save that the judge of the trial court is hereby ordered to resume jurisdiction over said cause at the stage the proceedings in said case of damages had reached when application for prohibition was filed by petitioner, to dispose of same according to law, without further delay. Consequently, excepting the provision made herein for the action of damages, the ruling of the justice in chambers in every other respect is hereby affirmed, with costs against respondent. And it is hereby so ordered. ilffirmed as modified.