THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL FOREST CORPORATION, Informant, v. GALIMA BAYSAH, Assigned Circuit Judge, Eighth Judicial Circuit, Nimba County; YAH RIVER LOGGING CORPORATION, et al., Respondents.

CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS. Argued April 2, 1976. Decided April 23, 1976. 1. An inferior court’s disregard of the Supreme Court’s mandate is contumacious. In proceedings before it, the Supreme Court sent a mandate to the lower court, commanding that until the expiration of the management agreement entered into by the parties, the injunction was perpetuated to restrain any interference therewith. The informant herein filed a bill of information, alleging that the lower court had disobeyed the mandate. The Supreme Court ruled that the management agreement was still in effect, and it agreed that the lower court had acted in defiance. Therefore, the Court ruled that the respondents were in contempt of it, and fined them accordingly. and Moses K. Yangbe for informant. No appearance for respondents. Toye C. Barnard MR. JUSTICE HENRIES delivered the opinion of the Court. During the March 1975 Term of this Court we, in an opinion delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Pierre, in Yah River Logging Corporation v. Poker, held that “until the expiration of the management agreement entered into 74 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 75 between the Yah River Logging Corporation (Yah) and the National Industrial Forest Corporation (NIFCO), the injunction is perpetuated to restrain any other management company from being allowed to interfere with the agreement already approved by the Government.” Accordingly, a mandate to this effect was sent from the Supreme Court to the lower court. During the present term of Court, NIFCO filed information to the effect that, notwithstanding this decision and the continued existence of the management agreement between the informant and the Yah River Logging Corporation, co-respondent Samuel T. Voker, Sr., alleging to be president and owner of Yah, “defiantly instituted an action of ejectment and injunction against the National Industrial Forest Corporation in total disregard of, and in disobedience to the decision of this Court.” The informant said that in its answer to the summary ejectment action and in its motion to vacate the injunction action, the trial court was informed that co-respondent Voker owned 300 of the Yah shares and that Andrew Sahyoun is president and the majority shareholder of Yah, but despite this the co-respondent judge refused to pay any credence thereto, and instead cancelled the informant’s bond which he had previously approved and ordered that informant cease from further operating the concession area, which informant and Yah had mutually agreed upon. This information was filed with the Justice presiding in chambers who forwarded it to the full bench, since it involved a mandate of the court, after commanding the respondents to file their returns on or before March 31, 1976, showing cause why they should not be held in contempt. On April 2, 1976, when the case was called for hearing, the respondents had not filed their returns, even though they had been served with the information. The informant told the Court that time was of the essence since 76 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS under contractual arrangements for the shipping of logs to foreign countries, a vessel was in the port of Buchanan, Grand Bassa County, ready to take delivery of the logs which were still in Nimba County; and that because of the injunction NIFCO’s operations had ceased to its detriment, as it was costing about $3,000 to $4,000 daily as long as the vessel remained in port. Under the circumstances the court proceeded to hear this information. The final judgment of this Court was clear that the injunction be perpetuated until the expiration of the agreement between Yah and NIFCO. We shall now inquire as to whether the management agreement had expired. The agreement dated July 23, 1973, was for a period of two years, ending July 23, 1975. According to corespondent Voker’s complaints in both causes of action, the Ministry of Agriculture extended the agreement to November io, 1975. On Monday, November 17, 1975, the board of directors of Yah adopted a resolution extending the agreement for a period of forty-five days from November ‘1o, 1975; this brought the expiration date of December 25, 1975. The record before us reveals that on November 20, 1975, Mrs. Lducia Tolbert, vice-president and chairman of the board of NIFCO, informed Mr. Taylor E. Major, chairman, board of directors of Yah, that the NIFCO board of directors had adopted a resolution to renew the agreement for two years, proposing, however, that a new agreement be negotiated on a more equitable basis to become effective as of December 1, 1976. The minutes of January 23, 1976, of the board of directors of Yah, at which co-respondent Voker was present, show that it was “unanimously agreed that NIFCO be authorized to continue the Yah River operation under the old management agreement until such time as a new management agreement could be concluded.” Accordingly, Mr. Fred Ryan, secretary of the board of Yah, wrote Mrs. Lducia Tolbert on January 25, 1976, that the board LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 77 of directors of Yah had agreed to permit NIFCO “to continue to manage the concession agreement under the terms of the old management agreement until such time when a new management agreement is concluded and signed between Yah River Logging Corporation and NIFCO.” From all of these proferted documents, it is clear that the agreement was still in force and that corespondent Voker was aware of this, having participated in the proceedings leading up to the extension of the agreement. As to whether or not Voker was president of Yah, a notice in the Liberian Star of January 6, 1975, lists Mr. Taylor E. Major as president of the board of directors, Dr. Samuel T. Voker as a member, and Mr. Andrew F. Sahyoun as president of the corporation, as a result of a shareholders’ meeting and board of directors meeting of January 3, 1975. All of these documents, including the Supreme Court’s mandate, were exhibits in the informant’s answer in the preliminary injunction and summary ejectment actions, yet Judge Galima D. Baysah denied the motion to vacate the preliminary injunction and ordered NIFCO to cease further operations in the concession area despite the fact that a cash bond approved by the judge had been filed by the informant. From the proferted documents, it appears that in the injunction action both parties filed bonds in the amount of $5oo. Respondent filed a paper bond with two sureties and an affidavit of sureties, but no certificate from the Ministry of Finance, in accord with our Civil Procedure Law, Rev. Code :63.2, 63.4. The informant filed a motion to vacate the preliminary injunction, accompanied by a cash bond in the form of a certified check of $500. In his ruling of March 26, 1976, the trial judge in referring to the check, said : “On the 17th day of March, 1976, the defendant brought to court check no. 517555, TRADEVCO, paid to the sheriff of Nimba 78 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS County, in the sum of $soo signed by a signature illegible, except that it was explained to us in court by their counsel that the name is A. F. Sahyoun, without a title as to what position he holds in the company. The court, at the time of the approval of said bond in court, did not take notice of what the check was about. The law provides that a judge shall amend his ruling at any time during the term time. The sheriff is hereby ordered to return the check to its owner against a receipt and the said bond is ordered cancelled to no effect. The defendant, if he so desires to modify the injunction, may seek a proper remedy at law. The injunction as heretofore ordered still stands in full force, and the sheriff of this court is hereby ordered to see to it that the injunction not be disobeyed. Any violation thereof until otherwise ordered shall be rigidly penalized in keeping with the law made and provided. The motion to vacate the temporary restraining order is hereby denied.” It is not clear whether the motion to vacate was denied because the signature on the check was illegible, or because the judge did not know what the check was for when he approved it. In any event, either reason was insufficient to cancel the bond since he was informed in court as to the purpose of the check and whose signature was thereon. It having been clearly established that the management agreement was still in force, and that a mandate of this Court had ordered that there be no interference with the agreement prior to its expiration, all of which was brought to the attention of the lower court, it was incumbent upon the trial judge to grant the motion to vacate the temporary restraining order which had been issued and which in effect contravened the decision of the Supreme Court. In Phelps v. Williams, [1928] LRSC 14; 3 LLR 54 (1928), we held that the decisions of this Court are binding upon all other courts within this Republic. In Amierable v. Cole, 13 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 79 LLR 17 (1957), we also held that an inferior court’s dis- regard of the Supreme Court’s mandate is contumacious. In view of the clear disobedience of this Court’s mandate by the trial judge, we hold him and Counsellor Emmanuel Gbalazeh, counsel for co-respondents, and corespondent Samuel T. Voker, guilty of contempt of this Court. The respondent judge and Counsellor Gbalazeh are fined $5oo each; and co-respondent Voker, who, despite his knowledge of this Court’s decision and of the extension of the expiration period of the agreement, instituted the action in an effort to disobey that decision, is fined $250. Costs in these proceedings to be paid by the respondents. And it is hereby so ordered. Adjudged in contempt.