The Sixth Judicial Circuit, Civil Law Court “B” at the Temple of Justice has set aside a jury verdict and granted a motion for a new trial in the long-running dispute over the intestate estate of the late Milad Hage. The ruling was handed down on November 27, 2025, by Presiding Judge Peter W. Gbeneweleh.
By Victoria G. Wesseh
In his decision, Judge Gbeneweleh ruled that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain the jury’s unanimous verdict holding Nohad M. Hage liable for fraud. According to the judge, the Objectors—led by Oumou Hage Sirleaf—failed to produce “clear and convincing” evidence that Nohad committed fraud regarding deeds associated with the Hage family’s properties.
Judge Cites Weak Evidence
Judge Gbeneweleh noted that the Objectors did not rebut Nohad Hage’s claims that she never authorized Oumou or Tony Hage to represent her in proceedings involving the properties, including the prohibition case against Bassam Jahwara.
The judge further stated that Oumou and her co-objectors also failed to refute Nohad’s assertion that a deed containing her name was used as collateral without her consent, despite her being an adult at the time.
He added that Nohad presented evidence that her deed from Mai B. Robert was registered in 1995—two years before the disputed property was acquired and probated in 1997—undermining the Objectors’ allegations.
“From the records before this court, the evidence presented to prove that the Respondent committed fraud is not clear and convincing and, as such, is not sufficient,” the ruling stated.
Judge Gbeneweleh added: “The jury could not have reached a unanimous liable verdict had they considered the totality and weight of the evidence produced during trial.”
Legal Basis for New Trial
Citing Chapter 26, Section 26.4 of the Liberian Civil Procedure Law, Judge Gbeneweleh ruled that the jury’s November 13, 2025 verdict was “contrary to the weight of the evidence.” The provision allows a court to set aside a jury verdict and order a new trial when the verdict conflicts with the evidence or when doing so serves the interest of justice.
He emphasized that while the jury is the finder of fact, the court must intervene when a verdict is not supported by the evidence.
“WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING,” the judge ruled, “the Motion for a New Trial is hereby granted, the verdict of the jury is hereby set aside, and a new trial is hereby awarded.”
Background of the Case
The dispute centers on allegations that Nohad Hage Mensah falsified deeds belonging to the estate of her father, Milad Hage. Earlier this month, a jury unanimously ruled that she had falsified property documents without the knowledge of her siblings and her stepmother, Oumou Hage Sirleaf.
Nohad’s lawyers subsequently filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the jury’s verdict was “clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence.” They contended that Nohad’s deeds predated those of her stepmother and siblings and that a surveyor had validated the deeds during testimony.
The defense also argued that claims made by Oumou regarding bank loans and collateral were misleading, asserting that it was Oumou—not the late Milad Hage—who took out a loan and submitted her deeds to Ecobank.
Counter-Arguments from Oumou’s Legal Team
In opposition, Oumou’s lawyers argued that the motion for a new trial was “procedurally defective, jurisdictionally void, and substantively baseless.” They maintained that rhe Civil Law Court lacks jurisdiction to retry matters originating from the Probate Court except to determine questions of title via jury trial, the Supreme Court’s mandates in the related 2014 and 2022 rulings require that the jury’s factual determination be transmitted to the Probate Court for final action and the jury’s verdict was supported by the evidence and should not have been disturbed.
They accused Nohad’s motion of being a “collateral attack on the jury’s fact-finding role” and an attempt to undermine the Supreme Court’s clear instructions.
Next Steps
With the jury verdict set aside, the case will now return to trial. Judge Gbeneweleh said this course of action serves the interest of justice, given the conflicting evidence presented.
The case—one of the most closely followed property and inheritance disputes in recent years—continues to attract public attention due to its complex legal history and the longstanding rift within the Hage family.
Support Independent Journalism
Your support helps FrontPage Africa continue delivering independent, credible, and impactful journalism. Every contribution strengthens our ability to investigate, inform, and hold power accountable while keeping quality journalism accessible to our readers.
Support our journalism or subscribe to receive the latest FrontPage Africa stories and updates.
