GEORGE OBEIDI and All Persons Acting in the Construction of a Building Situated on the Corner of Gurley and Broad Streets in the City of Monrovia and Bearing the Lot No. 123, Appellants, v. C. L. SIMPSON and T. EDWIN LOMAX, Legal Guardians of CHRISTIAN G. MOORT, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM RULING IN CHAMBERS ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI. Argued October 19, 20, 1966. Decided December 16, 1966. A trial court which has granted a motion to dissolve an injunction cannot require the defendant in the injunction proceeding to furnish a bond for indemnification of the plaintiff for damages pending appeal of the order which dissolved the injunction. 1956 CODE 6:1085. A ruling in Chambers granting a peremptory writ of certiorari was affirmed. Joseph Garber for appellants. C. P. Thompson and 0. Natty B. Davis for appellees. MR. JUSTICE the Court. WARDSWORTH delivered the opinion of The appeal in the above-entitled cause of action emanates from a ruling of the Chambers Justice on a petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari. Upon hearing arguments pro et con on the issues raised by petitioners in their petition and the returns of respondents, the Justice presiding in Chambers granted the peremptory writ. In the petition filed in the Chambers of the presiding Justice, the petitioners alleged : “1. That the petitioners filed an action of injunction against the within named defendants-respondents be573 574 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS fore His Honor Joseph Patrick Henry Findley, assigned Circuit Judge presiding over the September term, 1965, of the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, sitting in its equity division, enjoining, restraining, and prohibiting respondents herein from entering upon Lot. No. 123, situated and lying on the corner of Broad and Gurley Streets, Monrovia, and constructing and operating thereon directly or indirectly to which action, defendants- � respondents filed an answer to the complaint and a motion to dissolve the said injunction. Your petitioners accordingly filed their resistance. (See copies of said complaint, answer, motion, and resistance hereto attached and marked Exhibits A, B, C, and D, respectively.) “2. And your petitioners further say that the cause was called for hearing on the 3rd day of November, 1965, and after arguments pro et con, the respondent judge suspended the said cause until Friday, November 5th, when he required the parties to reargue and he made an interlocutory ruling requiring plaintiffspetitioners to file a bond not less than ninety thousand dollars ($90,000) on or before Monday, November 8, 1965, when the case would be called again for hearing on the motion. (See copies of the 3oth and 31st day’s sessions marked Exhibits E and F hereto attached.) “3. And your petitioners further say that on the 31st day’s session the court made another ruling, copy of which is hereto attached and marked Exhibit G which is self-explanatory. “4. And your petitioners further say that on the 34th day’s session when the cause was called for hearing, counsel for petitioners spread a submission on the records and after hearing of the said submission, the court entered a ruling dissolving the injunction, to which ruling, plaintiffs-petitioners excepted and prayed an appeal to the Honorable Supreme Court of LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 575 Liberia, sitting in its March term, 1966; but despite the announcement given on the records, the respondent judge, contrary to law, made a subsequent ruling attempting to review his ruling and granting defendantsrespondents a right to tender a performance bond until the appeal is heard, which petitioners say and maintain is in contravention of the statute laws of this country. (See copy of the said minutes and ruling of the 34th day’s session hereto attached and marked Exhibit H to form a part of this petition and which is self-explanatory.) ” Respondents in countering the said petition, strongly contended, inter alia, that certiorari would not lie because there was no matter pending in the court below which would legally warrant the application for the issuance of the writ. Upon dissolution of the injunction outright, to which an appeal was duly announced and granted, the trial judge lost jurisdiction over said cause by virtue of the exception taken to the ruling dissolving the injunction, an appeal from said ruling having been announced and recorded. The trial judge nevertheless subsequently entered the second ruling, thereby reversing his former ruling despite the appeal granted in said cause. For the benefit of this opinion we have deemed it expedient to quote the subsequent ruling of the trial judge, mentioned supra, in which he said : “Pending this appeal and the final hearing of these issues the defendant is hereby required to tender a performance bond indemnifying in the sum of $8o,000 and continue until the matter is finally determined by the Supreme Court of Liberia as the notice of appeal divests this court ruling of its finality; and in equity matters such as the present one, the court may require such a bond, and it is hereby so ordered. To which ruling plaintiff excepts. Matter suspended.” It is obvious that the trial judge did not only reopen the case by virtue of this subsequent ruling after an appeal 576 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS was announced and granted against the former ruling dissolving the injunction, but that this act on the part of the trial judge was arbitrary and illegal in that the statute provides : “An appeal from any judgment, except in an action for summary ejectment or maintenance or in habeas corpus proceedings, shall operate as a stay of execution. When an appeal is perfected, the sheriff or constable or other officer is thereby enjoined from taking any proceedings under any writ of execution or sale issued upon the judgment appealed from or by virtue thereof.” 1956 CODE 6:991. This Court concedes the contention of respondentsappellants that the judge is legally authorized to grant a bond in an injunction matter to permit the defendant to continue his operation, etc.; but this Court cannot bring itself to accede to the proposition advanced by the said respondents-appellants to the effect that, regardless of an announcement of appeal of the ruling dissolving the injunction, the judge is authorized to grant a bond to indemnify the appellants, thereby destroying the aim and purpose of an appeal with impunity. The statute is vocal on this point and cannot be construed otherwise; it specifically provides that: “Upon reasonable notice to the plaintiff, the defendant may file a motion to dissolve or modify the writ; and the court shall hear the motion as expeditiously as the ends of justice permit. The court may dissolve the writ outright at such hearing or may condition dissolution of the writ pending final hearing of the issues on the giving of a bond by the defendant for any damage caused the plaintiff by the defendant’s actions after dissolution of the writ if on final hearing a permanent injunction is granted… .” 1956 CODE 6:1084. It is crystal clear from the above citation of law that a bond in an injunction suit may be granted pending final hearing of the issues, but there is no provision for the LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 577 granting of a bond subsequent to the hearing of the motion to dissolve and dissolution of said writ outright. In view of the foregoing, it is our considered opinion that the trial judge erred in granting respondents-appellants a bond to continue operations, which act on his part had no foundation or support in law. Therefore the ruling of the Chambers Justice is hereby affirmed with costs against respondents-appellants. And it is hereby so ordered. Ruling affirmed.