Tagged: ACTION OF EJECTMENT

On July 17, 2024, the movant, Siaka Turay, filed this motion to dismiss the respondents, Ma Konneh Kamara et al., appeal, averring therein that the movant instituted an action of ejectment against the respondents and all occupants under her control on the 27th Day of January 2023 at the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Civil Law Court; movant further averred that after pleadings rested, and considering that the parties derived their titles from the same grantors and that the movant’s title is older than that of the respondents, the movant filed a motion for summary judgment, which was heard and granted by

On the 10th day of January, A.D. 2014, the appellee, Alhaji Kalamo Fofana, instituted an action of ejectment by and thru his attorney-in-fact, Mohammed Fofana, against the defendants, Moivamba Fofana, James Fofana, Emmanuel B. Nyenswa, the Management of Tohnlo Women & Youth Training Empowerment Program and Siemon Weah substantially alleging that the appellee is owner of one acre of land lying and situated at the City of Paynesward, now Paynesville, Montserrado County which he acquired through an honorable purchased on the 28th day of April, A.D. 1979 from Leona Lloyd; that in 1994, he entrusted his title deed to Moivamba Fofana, 1st appellant herein, who the appellee knew and aided while he (the 1st appellant) was in school and at the time of entrusting him with the deed, he was a custom officer of the Ministry of Finance assigned at the Freeport of Monrovia; that he (the appellee) later found out that the 1st appellant was constructing on the land and had sold portion to other defendants; that the appellee

This appeal grows out of a final ruling of the Sixth Judicial Circuit for Montserrado County in an action of ejectment filed by Bishop Fungbeh Kiamu, appellee, against several defendants, namely: Lamei Bonokai, William Mator, Jackson Quashed, Ma Sonny, Taku Jil, Sensee Elijah, Anthony Daniel and Papa Korkor, now appellants. The records show that after pleadings rested, the law issues disposed of and a regular jury trial had, the jury returned a unanimous verdict of liable against the appellants which verdict was confirmed by the trial court in its final ruling rendered on May 31, 2018. The appellants noted exceptions on the record, announced appeal and perfected same for an appellate review. It is worth noting that on appeal, this case was first called for hearing on November 17, 2020, the appellants requested continuance on ground that the counsel retained to represent them before this Court had conflict of interest. Similar request was made and granted on May 4, 2021 thereby abating the hearing of this appeal in two successive terms of court. When this matter was again assigned for hearing on May 18, 2023, the appellants have again assigned the same reason for failing to file a brief and to appear for argument of the case. This Court viewed the act of the appellants as a dilatory