Supreme Court Communication Director, Darryl Ambrose Nmah, has clarified the recent Marshall land dispute case involving Chief Justice Her Honor Sie -A- Nyene Yuoh. In an exclusive interview with FPA at his Supreme Court office, Nmah addressed the allegations made against the Chief Justice, stating that the story is untrue.
By Mae Azango ([email protected])
While emphasizing that he is not the spokesperson for the family, Nmah explained that he intervened in the matter because the Chief Justice was mentioned in the story as the Chief Justice and not as an individual. He had a conversation with her to provide the newspaper with an opportunity to correct the story.
“The Chief Justice has never bought any property from Clarence Momolu,” Nmah stated firmly. He revealed that in February of this year, the Chief Justice’s daughter, who resides in the United States with her husband, informed her mother about a surprise gift—a land she had purchased for her. Interestingly, this property is in close proximity to another property owned by the Chief Justice. When they visited the property, they discovered some structures on it. Nmah recounted how the Chief Justice questioned her daughter about the validity of the property, and her daughter confirmed its authenticity, as she had purchased it from her uncle, Clarence Momolu.
According to Nmah’s account, upon arriving at the property, the Chief Justice encountered a man who claimed ownership. She informed him that her daughter had acquired the land from Clarence Momolu. Surprisingly, she discovered that the individuals who sold the land to the man were the same people who sold her the adjacent property.
Concerned about potential property disputes and wanting to avoid any involvement for her daughter, the Chief Justice advised her not to proceed with the purchase. She suggested that her daughter reclaim her money from Clarence Momolu. Nmah emphasized that the Chief Justice has not set foot on the property since February and does not recall the details of the property.
In response to the land dispute allegations, Clarence Momolu Sr., when approached at the Temple of Justice, denied any involvement with the Chief Justice in a land transaction or any other person. He asserted his ownership of the land, providing a land deed dated April 24th, 1989, from Felix O. Lawrence to Clarence Momolu as evidence. Momolu stated that he won a case against the individuals involved in the dispute in the Kakata Court, confirming his ownership of 100 acres of land in the Marshall area.
Momolu maintained that he had served all adjacent parties with citations before the demolition exercise, contrary to the claims made by Mr. Jefferson Knight, Director of the New Life Recovery Center, who said he was never served a notice. Momolu dismissed Knight’s assertion as false, suggesting that Knight’s associates may have neglected to inform him about the citation. Furthermore, Momolu alleged that Knight was constructing unauthorized structures on the land, attempting to politicize the situation for personal gain.
Addressing the claims made by Mr. William Smith, whom Knight mentioned as the seller of the land, Smith stated that the land in question is a native reserve of 440 acres purchased from the government since the 1800s. Smith clarified that he has no knowledge of Clarence Momolu and denied any involvement with him or his court documents.
Smith confirmed selling the land to Knight, as well as selling land in the same area to the Chief Justice, where she has her house. He expressed surprise that the Chief Justice did not consult him before her daughter’s purchase from Momolu, suggesting that her daughter should retrieve her money from Momolu since the land belonged to Knight.
Knight, however, maintained that he never received a citation because his name was not mentioned in the court documents. He also claimed that Momolu had taken legal action against another area in Marshall and was mistakenly conflating the two places.
In response to Knight’s remarks, Nmah defended the Chief Justice, stating that Momolu had informed him in another town that he had sold the land to the Chief Justice and that she planned to repurchase the area where she had built her house from him. Nmah dismissed Knight’s assertions as false and reiterated the Chief Justice’s lack of involvement in any land transaction with Momolu.
The land dispute in Marshall remains a contentious issue, with multiple parties providing conflicting accounts of the events. As the situation unfolds, further investigation and legal proceedings are necessary to determine the veracity of the claims and resolve the dispute.