Liberia: Court Awards Cllr. Goll US$40,000 Against Brussels Airlines; Plaintiff’s Lawyer Takes Exception

Monrovia – The Civil Law Court for Montserrado County has awarded Cllr. Urias S. Goll US$40,000 in general damages against Brussels Airlines, but his lawyer, Atty. Jeremiah Samuel Dugbo I, has taken exception to the amount as inadequate and announced an appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the award does not commensurate with the extent of harm suffered by his client.

The airline has also excepted to the judgment and announced its own appeal.

The ruling, delivered Tuesday, October 6, by Assigned Circuit Judge Golda A. Bonah Elliott during the 12th day of the September Term of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, found Brussels Airlines liable for denying Goll boarding on a scheduled flight from Monrovia to Brussels, failing to provide adequate notice, and refusing to offer him reimbursement or rerouting as required under passenger protection rules incorporated into his ticket contract.

In addition to the US$40,000 general damages, the court ordered Brussels Airlines to refund the full cost of Goll’s original ticket, reimburse the difference between that ticket and the replacement ticket he purchased from Ethiopian Airlines, and pay transportation expenses incurred for his journey between Toronto and Windsor, Canada.

But for Goll’s legal team, the financial award remains insufficient.

Immediately after Judge Elliott delivered the final ruling, Atty. Jeremiah Samuel Dugbo I, representing Goll alongside Cllr. Joshua Kulah of the CMB Law Group, excepted specifically to the amount awarded for general damages and announced an appeal before the Supreme Court of Liberia during its October Term 2026.

The defense also excepted to the ruling.

A Disputed Flight That Never Left Monrovia

The case arose from Goll’s August 17, 2025 travel plans to Canada.

Goll had purchased a round-trip ticket from Brussels Airlines, with the first leg of his journey scheduled from Monrovia to Brussels. Air Canada was to transport him from Brussels to Toronto and then to Windsor.

But Goll never made it to Brussels.

The court found that when he arrived at Roberts International Airport, Brussels Airlines denied him boarding after receiving information that Air Canada would not be available for the onward journey because of a strike involving its employees.

Goll testified that he requested to be rerouted but was denied. Instead, he said, a Brussels Airlines staff member provided him with a telephone number and instructed him to contact Air Canada.

He refused, maintaining that his contractual relationship at that stage was with Brussels Airlines.

Judge Elliott ultimately agreed.

The court held that because Goll never reached Brussels, Air Canada’s obligation to him had not yet arisen.

The responsibility for transporting him from Monrovia to Brussels remained with Brussels Airlines.

The court said the airline should have either refunded his ticket or rerouted him under comparable transportation conditions.

Court Faults Airline’s Handling

The court was particularly critical of Brussels Airlines’ handling of the situation.

Its lone witness, Ticket Supervisor Tukus Ama Harris, testified that she was informed that Goll had been offered a refund at the airport but rejected it.

However, Harris was not in Liberia when the incident occurred.

The court found that her account was unsupported by direct evidence and amounted, at best, to hearsay. Goll denied ever being offered a refund or rejecting one.

The court therefore accepted his account that he had sought rerouting but was not provided with that option.

Medical Distress Cited

The judgment also relied on medical evidence presented by Dr. Ibrahim F. Ajami.

The doctor testified that he examined Goll on August 18, 2025, after Goll complained of severe headache and light-headedness.

According to the testimony, Goll had elevated blood pressure, anxiety, a fast heartbeat, and a headache. He was treated with medication and instructed to rest.

Goll further testified that the disrupted journey affected plans he had made with his wife and children in Canada and forced him to purchase another ticket through Ethiopian Airlines and arrange transportation between Toronto and Windsor.

EU Rules Become Central to Ruling

Judge Elliott’s ruling placed significant emphasis on the European Union’s passenger-rights regulation, EC261/2004, which governs, among other things, denied boarding, cancellation, reimbursement and rerouting.

The court acknowledged that the regulation is not domesticated Liberian legislation but held that it could nevertheless be relied upon because provisions of the regulation were incorporated into the terms and conditions of the ticket issued by Brussels Airlines.

The court also noted that Brussels Airlines is a European carrier and is therefore subject to the regulation.

Under the regulation, the court found, Goll was entitled to reimbursement or rerouting after being denied boarding.

The court concluded that Brussels Airlines failed to provide him with either.

Court Finds ‘Wanton’ Conduct

In assessing general damages, Judge Elliott cited the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Kesselly v. SN Brussels Airlines, which addressed damages for mental anguish, indignity, emotional distress and aggravated conduct.

The Civil Law Court found that Brussels Airlines’ failure to notify Goll of the disruption, its denial of boarding and its failure to provide reimbursement or rerouting constituted intentional and wanton conduct.

The court therefore awarded US$40,000 in general damages.

Goll had sought US$300,000 in general damages, in addition to US$10,000 in special damages.

The court, however, granted other forms of monetary relief, including reimbursement for the replacement travel arrangements and transportation expenses.

Supreme Court Now to Decide

With both sides taking exceptions, the dispute is now headed for the Supreme Court.

For Goll, the appeal will challenge the adequacy of the US$40,000 general damages award. For Brussels Airlines, the appeal will challenge the lower court’s ruling holding the airline liable.

The Supreme Court will therefore have the opportunity to review the lower court’s findings and determine whether the judgment and damages awarded should stand, be modified or overturned.