Monrovia – The neutrality of a Judge at the Commercial Court has been questioned amid numerous landmark court cases currently before the court for adjudication.
During a public engagement, the Executive Director of the Center for Intellectual Thinking (CIT) Mr. James McGill said in August 2015, that he followed the activities of the Commercial Court with great interest because the business community in the country is being challenged with many players.
He wondered as to whether the commercial court will live up to its statutory mandate, as he listened to the Resident Judge intervention in the Chamber of commerce business forum held on Friday April 24,2015 on the topic, “Enabling the investment and commercial sectors.”
Also speaking at the forum, Judge Eva Mappy Morgan of the Commercial Court who served as special guest during the gathering gave an overview of the commercial court and said the commercial court was established to promote a favorable investment climate and instill confidence in the business community.
The Chief Judge of the Commercial Court noted that the long delay in hearing cases involving business entities is frustrating the debt recovery effort, contributing to the unwillingness of entities.
She said the Commercial Court comprises of three judges panel that sit individually and together at times, depending on the claimed amount, adding that they(Judges) strive for fairness, excellence and commitment to God in the performance of their statutory mandate.
Judge Mappy’s overview of the commercial court raised the bar in terms of its capability and ability to expeditiously handle cases and/or disputes that may arise as a result of commercial activities amongst businesses.
The neutrality of the Commercial Court continued to be questioned in the most recent dispute on the trademark fraud case ongoing involving H.K Enterprise, a Lebanese company and BAF Trading Corporation a Liberian company
Some say the circumstances surrounding the case signals a deviation in the overview of the commercial court judge at the Chamber of Commerce.
In February 2014, BAF Trading Corporation noted that their trademark right was infringed upon by H.K. Enterprise to which BAF Trading acknowledged that some government institutions including the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Customs and Liberia Intellectual Property Office who are involved in the promotion and protection of commerce and Trade related activities in Liberia remained silent on the issue.
During one year of fight from January 2014 to December 2014, BAF trading discovered that said institutions cited above were implicated directly or indirectly with one registration of the duplicated trademark of H.K Enterprise and others facilitating smooth importation of the product Pop Drink for the infringer H.K Enterprise.
After a communication from Minister Axel A. ADDY ordering the restoration of BAF trading right, it was indicated that said communication was ignored by the government institution which led to BAF Trading filing a lawsuit at the Commercial Court for a declaratory judgment against the Liberia Intellectual Property Office (1st Respondent), the Ministry of Commerce (2nd Respondent) and H.K Enterprise (3rd Respondent) in March 2015.
Realizing the extent to which the infringement has reached, BAF Trading Corporation proceeded for the issuance of a preliminary writ of injunction to stop the clearing of a container of Pop Drink brought into the country by the alleged infringer(H.K. Enterprise).
But the writ of injunction was denied by Judge Chan Chan Paegar who is expected to hand down final ruling in the BAF Trading Corporation versus H.K. Enterprise case.
The Commercial Court Associate Judge Pegar on July 17, 2015 ordered the Minister of Commerce Addy without hearing or a conference of any sort into the petition for declaratory judgment and subsequent writ for preliminary injunction filed by BAF Trading Corporation ordered H.K enterprise to import Pop Drink in to the country.
According Judge Paegar, there was no injunction placed on importation, distribution, marketing and/or sale of Pop Drink on the Liberian market, adding that the parties have posted the requisite indemnity Bonds in favor of each other.
This order by the Associate Judge of the Commercial Court has been described as a deviation of the court before the judgment of the case as presented by Chief Judge Morgan at the April 24, 2015 business forum held by the Liberia Chamber of Commerce.
Judiciary observers are questioning the attitude of Judge Paegar saying he downplayed the right of the complainant and are questioning the neutrality of said judge as he prepares to rule in the trademark fraud case.