Court Reverses Judgment against Weah’s Chief of Protocol


The Civil Law Court ‘B’ at the Temple of Justice has reversed its earlier judgment in favor of one Alieu Harvey that mandated the immediate ejection of President George Weah’s chief of protocol, Nora Finda Bundoo, and several others out of 3.45  acres of land situated in the Christopolis community in Brewerville, outside Monrovia.

The disputed 3.45 land was a portion of the Intestate Estate of the Late A.J. Brisbane.

In the twist of the court’s decision, Judge Scheaplor Dunbar explained that though his ruling placed the highly contested properties into the possession of Harvey, he had decided to reverse his decision when he investigated the testimony of one of the court’s Bailiffs, Anthony Flomo, when he served as a witness.

Regarding his own Writ of Possession that placed the properties squarely in the care of Harvey, Dunbar declared that the writ issued by the court to eject the defendants is “quashed and set-aside.”

“This court’s final judgment of February 14, 2018, is vacated and set aside,” the civil law court judge’s ruling, dated July 20, declared.

Dunbar said that his decision was without prejudice and, therefore, he has granted leave to Harvey to file a new ejection against all the individuals who are allegedly occupying his property.

That ruling, dated February 16, a copy of which is in the possession of the Daily Observer, authorizes Captain Humphrey Seequeh, Deputy Sheriff for Montserrado County, and quotes Dunbar, instructing, “You are ordered to put the plaintiff (Harvey) in complete and unrestricted possession of the property by virtue of the court’s trial jury verdict and the final judgment dated February 14.”

Twisting his language, Dunbar said Flomo’s testimony was false and misleading when he claimed that he served the defendants with the writ on October 30, 2017.

“But the document showed that the defendants were served on October 21, 2017,” Dunbar said of an action which discredited Flomo’s testimony.

Dunbar also advised Harvey to file a new lawsuit against the defendants; but this time he should ensure that all the named defendants, who include Madam Bundoo, were properly served with the precepts.

The intense drama ensured when Bundoo and her co-defendants challenged the February 14 judgment of the court, arguing that they were not served a copy of any writ of summons in October 2017, although Flomo  had repeatedly testified that they were served with the writ of summons on October 30 and which was intended to amicably resolve the dispute.

Flomo also testified that he served the court Writ of Summons that invited Madam Bundoo and her co-defendants to attend the Action of Ejection case filed by Harvey against the defendants.

Besides, summoning the defendants, there were several other notice of assignments that the court used to pursue Bundoo and her co-defendants to amicably find a lasting solution to the matter; but, again they refused to do so.

Further to his testimony, Witness Flomo claimed that some of the defendants, not including Bundoo, received and signed the court’s document for consultation, but the defendants failed to obey those efforts.

It was due to that oral and documentary evidence that Judge Dunbar immediately set-up a jury panel; and the court entertained testimonies from witnesses that included Harvey in the absence of the defendants.

After Harvey and his witnesses’ testified, Dunbar, in the absence of the defendants’ testimony, ruled by placing the properties into the possession of Harvey.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here