The NEWS (Monrovia)
18 August 2008
Monrovia — Affairs, Benoni Urey are requesting the Civil Law Court at the Temple of Justice to rescind its ruling in a libel suit rendered in favor of former President Moses Blah.
The lawyers said the presiding Judge of the court Yusuf Kaba 'erred grossly' when he granted relief to a party by the use of one legal instrument to satisfy another.
The lawyers request was contained in a two-page Motion to rescind judgment filed on August 15, 2008.
They argued that a Motion for Summery Judgment cannot be used to dismiss a case on its merits when a Motion To Dismiss was pending before the court and undetermined as a matter of law.
The lawyers contended that the Motion for Summery Judgment and Motion To Dismiss are two separate and distinct legal instruments in which the former deals with the examination of facts of the case and the latter deals with the disposition of law issues.
They also contended that the decision by the court granting final ruling on the merit of the case in the absence of disposition of a Motion to Dismiss which deals with law issues, as is in the instant case, was contrary to law.
Movant says and submits, that "the only curable remedy available to such legal error is to rescind the said judgment and declare the entire ruling whatsoever, a complete legal nullity, with no binding force or effect, as a matter of law."
Plaintiff's motion to rescind judgment grew out of an Action of Damage for Libel filed by Mr. Urey against former Liberian President Blah.
Mr. Urey had filed a US$4.5 million damage suit against Mr. Blah following his testimony at the Special War Crimes Court in The Hague, Netherlands. Mr. Urey said Blah accused him falsely when he alleged that he (Urey) gave US$3 million of the country's maritime fund to ex-Liberian President Charles Taylor.
At the close of the case last week, Judge Kaba dismissed the Libel suit against Mr. Blah on grounds that it did not have merit.
The Judge said the libel suit against the former president could not be granted because defendant Blah should not have been taken to court for his testimony in The Hague.
Judge Kaba indicated that Mr. Blah served as prosecution witness and he enjoyed the privileges of the Special Court.
"Blah was a subpoena witness and, like in all other cases, a witness appearing before a common court would be required to answer all questions to the best of his knowledge," the court ruled out.
Continuing, the court added, "Since the testimony provided by the wittiness was not in anyway objected to by the court, defendant Blah can not be held liable for such testimony."
The ruling further stated, "there is principle of law that if the testimony is pertinent to the issue and relevant to the question posed by prosecution, though it may be defamatory, yet it is not answerable to."
The court said if the plaintiff is injured by the defendant's testimony, he should have appeared before the Special Court to exonerate himself.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2008 The NEWS. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
