By Staff Writer
The Civil Law Court at the Temple of Justice has ordered the Liberia National Police (LNP) to assist in the immediate eviction of the Congress for Democratic Change (CDC) from its party headquarters in Congo Town, a property the court has now put in the possession of it’s rightful owner the Intestate Estate of the late Martha Stubblefield Bernard, represented by its administrator, Ebrima Varney Dempster, of the City of Monrovia.
His Honor George W. Smith Assigned Circuit Judge of the Civil Law Court give the mandate on Monday, August 4, 2025 in a motion for a Partial Summary Judgment filed to the court by the Estate of the late Martha Stubblefield Bernard.
“Wherefore, and in view of the foregoing, the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is sustained and granted. Respondent CDC is adjudged partially liable to Petitioner,” Judge Smith stated.
Judge Smith said the petitioner Intestate Estate of Martha Stubblefield Bernard is hereby ordered placed in possession of its property being possessed and occupied by Respondent CDC.
The Judge at the same time ordered the Clerk of Court to issue a Writ of Possession and Execution and place same in the hands of the Sheriff of the Court to have the Respondent ousted, evicted and ejected from the subject property and have Petitioner placed in possession of its property.
“The Clerk is also ordered to communicate with the Liberia National Police (LNP), ordering it to assist in executing this Court’s Order,” Judge Smith mandated.
Prior to Monday’s police eviction order from Judge Smith; the Court on ruling and final judgment in the Petition for Specific Performance rendered on Friday, August 1, 2025, says: “Amongst the elements of a valid and enforceable contract, as specifically relates to this case, are offer made by the offeror, Respondent Intestate Estate of Martha Stubblefield Barnard, and acceptance of the offer by the offeree, Petitioner CDC.
According to the court, the records reveal that, based on the Supreme Court’s Opinion and Judgment of 2025 declaring a landlord-tenant relationship between Respondent Intestate Estate of Martha Stubblefield and Petitioner CDC, the former gave the latter first refusal or acceptance offer for the sale of Respondent Intestate Estate of Martha Stubblefield Bernard’s property, subject of the Petition for Specific Performance, at a sale price of 4.2 million US dollars, as per Respondent’s letter of offer to Petitioner dated August 8, 2024, written by Respondent’s lawyer, Cllr. J. Jonny Momoh.
The next day, on August 9, 2024, Cllr. Momoh informed Petitioner CDC that Respondent “has an agreement with a third party to purchase his client’s four-point-two-three (4.23) acres of land on which the Congress for Democratic Change (CDC) has its headquarters for the price of United States Dollars Two Million Five Hundred Thousand (US$2,500,000.00) as stated in the therein-mentioned communication was an error.
The purchase price as per the agreement between his client and the third party mentioned in their communication of August 8, 2024 is of United States Dollars Four Millon Five Hundred Thousand (US$4,500,000.00) and not of United States Dollars Two Million Five Hundred Thousand (UD$2,500,000.00) as erroneously mentioned in said communication.
Cllr. Momoh asked the court to take note of the correction of the error amount in CDC’s response to Respondent Intestate Estate of Martha Stubblefield Bernard’s offer which reads, “…we have been notified by a Clerk certificate from the Honorable Supreme Court of Liberia that your client’s ownership is in contest and inconclusive due to a pending lawsuit for the same property; in the meantime, CDC hereby wishes to suspend further discussion and hereby reassures you and your client that after the final determination of the pending action, we are ready to consummate the purchase agreements.” It must be noted that there is no such written “purchase agreement,” as required by law, exhibited by Petitioner CDC.
The Court says that an offeree’s power, Petitioner CDC’s power, of acceptance of an offer made by the offeror, Respondent Instate Estate of Martha Stubblefield Barnard, may be terminated by rejection by the offeree, Petitioner CDC; and hence the non-existence of a contract. The tenor of the contents contained in Petitioner CDC’s response to Respondent’s letter of offer is a clear and unambiguous rejection of said offer.
According to the court, Section 73 Time for, Delay in, Acceptance; Contracts, it is indeed undisputable, as the records in this case reveal, that there was an on-going arrangement, not ripen to a contract, between Petitioner CDC and Respondent Intestate Estate of the Martha Stubblefield Bernard for the sale of the former’s property to the latter. Unfortunately, however, there has been no meeting of the minds, consensus of the parties, hence, there is no contract between Petitioner and Respondent in order to sustain this Petition for Specific Performance.
It must also be noted that after the Supreme Court having recognized a landlord-tenant relationship between Petitioner and Respondent, among others, and when Petitioner CDC was on the verge of being evicted from the subject property, Petitioner CDC through its Acting Chairman, Atty. Janga A. Kowo, recently wrote a letter on June 4, 2025, to the Counsel of Respondent Intestate Estate of Martha Stubblefield Bernard, Cllr. J. Jonny Momoh, stating that Petitioner CDC accepts Respondent’s offer for the sale of the subject property, two days after on June 2, 2025, when Respondent’s Counsel, Cllr. Momoh wrote a letter giving notice to Petitioner to vacate Respondent’s property. Under this circumstance, Petitioner’s so-called “acceptance” is not legally an acceptance of Respondent’s offer, but rather a counteroffer. This offer or counteroffer of Petitioner CDC was rejected by Respondent on June 10, 2025, through a letter written by Respondent’s Counsel, Cllr. Momoh, as the tenor or contents of that letter show. The Court says that the law provides that “an offeree’s power of acceptance may be terminated by rejection or counteroffer by the offeree,” or by “revocation by the offeror.” Petitioner CDC’s letter of June 4, 2025 agreeing to purchase the property is a counteroffer which was rejected by Respondent’s June 10, 2025 letter to Petitioner. While Respondent’s letter of June 2, 2025, giving notice to Petitioner to vacate its property is a revocation of its prior August 8 and August 9, 2024 letters of offer to Petitioner CDC for the purchase of Respondent’s property by Petitioner CDC, thus bringing to an end all the arrangements regarding the sale of Respondents property.
