Monrovia – It has been five years since the Supreme Court put a halt to the reading of the sealed verdict of the trial jury in the late Milad Hage vs. Ecobank Case, yet the verdict remains enclosed.
Report by Bettie K. Johnson Mbayo, [email protected]
The order to hold the sealed verdict in 2012 came just minutes after the trial jury came out of their deliberation room to give their verdict in the case.
The mandate to seize the verdict of the empaneled jury came under the gavel of Associate Justice Jamesetta Howard Wolokollie, then the justice in chambers.
A stay order and subsequent disbandment of the jury followed the mandate.
“By directive of her honor Jamesetta Howard Wolokolie, Associate Justice presiding in Chambers, you are hereby ordered to disband the jury in the case since the Writ of certiorari has already been issued,” the mandate read.
The case has since been in limbo, languishing on the shelves of the Supreme Court.
The action by Justice Wolokolie followed a petition for a Writ of Certiorari filed by the Ecobank against late Judge Emmanuel Kollie.
A Writ of Certiorari is an order by which a higher court reviews a decision of a lower court.
FrontPageArica’s perusal of the case file observed that the envelope containing the jury verdict was not available in the file.
In its petition for Writ of Certiorari, Ecobank prayed the Supreme Court to review, correct and set aside that which is believed by them to be an erroneous ruling made by the judge.
EcoBank in its petition for a Writ of Certiorari indicated that judge denied their Motion for Judgment During Trial, claiming that the Testate Estate of the late Milad R. Hage thru its executor, Bassam H. Jawhary filed a criminal indictment claiming fraud, forgery and theft of which are all felonies of the second degree which punishment calls for the restitution of double the gain.
However, Ecobank in its petition for the Writ of Certiorari argued that Hage Estate could not at the same time file an action or damages for wrong growing out of the same facts and circumstances.
They noted that action of damages may apply, in addition to criminal charges, only where there is injury to the person of the victim or death.
“On the basis of the averments of Counts One (1) Through Three (3) above and other evidence and other evidence adduced at the trial, Petitioner filed the Motion for Judgment During Trial, withdrew and filed the Amended Motion for Judgment During Trial by opposing party with respect to a claim or issue, when said evidence is insufficient to warrant the defendant taking the stand to defend against it, the defendant may move the court for judgment during trial as a matter of law,” the Writ of Certiorari stated.
Ecobank further contended that Judge Kollie made a ruling which denied the Motion for Judgment during the trial, relying solely on the contents of the resistance that the pendency of the criminal case for forgery, fraud and theft did not preclude a civil suit in damages for forgery, fraud and theft.
They described the ruling as “a reversible error and since correct ruling would have caused a dismissal of the case and that such correct ruling could have been reviewed by the Supreme Court only, then an erroneous ruling is similarly subject to review by the Supreme Court.
This is the primary office of the writ of certiorari – to correct an erroneous ruling made during trial, which had it been correctly made, could have only been reviewed by the Supreme Court.”
According to the indictment against Ecobank, during the period 2008 up to and including early 2010, the above named Defendants without any color of right and the fear of God in violation of the statutory laws of Liberia made and provided with criminal and wicked intent to deprive Milad R. Hage Business Complex did knowingly, feloniously, criminally and maliciously stole and converted various amounts from his private account and the escrow account opened for the loan secured from Ecobank.
The indictment alleged that Ecobank under various schemes connived and conspired and acting in concert issued fake receipts to the tenants of the private prosecutor without fully depositing said amounts to the account for the loan.
The bank also allegedly neither issued out deposit slips to tenants of the private prosecutor without said amounts being reflected on the bank statements nor entering into the account.
Ecobank was also accused of forging the signatures of genuine payee and altered the name of the payee to encash checks not withdrawn in their names which various acts resulted to the amounts of over US$153,220.00 and L$219,000 and converted same into their personal use and benefit at the disadvantage of the private prosecutor.
The indictment further disclosed Ecobank check # 00915802 dated August 26, 2008 for US$10,000.00 drawn on account # 13-7100037-52-018 pay to cash was reported missing to the Ecobank to be missing and said check was later altered and placed in the name of Challenge Enterprise and encashed by Ecobank on September 30, 2008.
“When presented at the defendants’ bank the account was said not to have sufficient cash and instead of returning to Milad R. Hage, of the Milad R. Hage Business Complex, the bank kept the check and altered same and wrote the name of Challenge Enterprise on it and encashed it,” the indictment iterated.
The indictment further indicated that another Ecobank check #00915813 for US$10,000 dated September 30, 2008 was drawn on account # 1370003752018 in the name of Attachie Ben Kwame of the Living Bread Pentecostal Church for Charity was presented to John Jukon at his Ecobank office after been turned down for “insufficient fund”.
The check was later encashed the same day by the bank which constitutes theft.
“Checks issued to persons by Milad R. Hage Business Complex were refused to be paid by the defendants [EcoBank] on grounds of ‘insufficient fund’ but instead of being returned, were kept and later altered, falsified and enchased by the defendant and the proceeds converted into their own personal us,” the indictment disclosed.
It is also alleged in the indictment that sometime in 2008, receipt book nos. 3561-700, 1401-1450 and 2102-2150 of the business complex were duplicated by the bank without the knowledge of the executor of the testate and used same to collect rents from the tenants of the private prosecutor which amounts were not deposited into account #1371007522018 at Ecobank to savage the loan secured from the bank.