Over the weekend, the Civil Law Court Annex 'A' dashed the hopes of members of the Congress for Democratic Change (CDC), petitioner, when it said it could not compel the intestate estate of the late Martha Stubblefield Bernard (respondent) to sell their property to the party.
In the court's ruling, Judge George W. Smith said that the petitioner (CDC) failed to produce documentary evidence, such as a duly executed sale of real property contract or agreement to sell real property, to establish the existence of a sale and purchase agreement between the petitioner and respondent for the purchase of the respondent's property.
CDC had consistently argued that there existed a contract agreement between them (petitioner) and the Intestate Estate of the late Martha Stubblefield Bernard for the purchase of the property.
CDC also asked the court to enforce the existing contact agreement between it and the intestate estate of the late Martha Stubblefield Bernard.
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
But Judge Smith denied the CDC's argument of an existing contract or agreement between the petitioner and the respondent, from which the petition for specific performance derived.
Smith went further to define specific performance, which, according to the judge, is an equitable suit whose essence is to ensure that fair play is done or accomplished.
"A fundamental prerequisite for enforcement of specific performance is that there must be a contract to be enforced and there must be an adequate remedy at law," Smith noted.
According to the judge, the facts and circumstances of the case established that there is no contact between the petitioner and respondent to enforce.
"This court cannot decree a specific performance rule; otherwise, it would mean to coerce the respondent in selling its property to the petitioner, which this court is prohibited by law from doing," Smith's ruling said.
The CDC went to the court, seeking its assistance to prevail on the Estate to continue with the discussion on the sale and purchase of the 4.23 acres of land, where the party has its headquarters, in Congo Town.
The Supreme Court, in 2016 confirmed the same Civil Law Court's judgement granting the ownership of the property to the Intestate Estate of the late Martha Stubblefield Bernard, after years of legal struggle with the Intestate Estate of the late William Thomas Bernard. The court also ordered CDC's eviction from the property.
However, when the Intestate Estate of the late Martha Stubblefield Bernard began the enforcement and execution of the judgment in keeping with the mandate of the Supreme Court, the CDC, in order to prevent the enforcement and execution of the mandate, engaged the Intestate Estate to purchase the 4.23 acres of land or a portion thereof.
Surprisingly, the respondent set a precondition for negotiating with the petitioner, especially settlement of the bill of cost and negotiating and paying the rent for the period 2018 to 2023, which the CDC did by settling the bill of cost in the amount of US$55,000 and paying the negotiated rent for the period 2018 to 2023 in the amount of US$360,000.
Unfortunately, while the negotiation was ongoing, on August 15, 2024, CDC wrote a letter to the Intestate Estate, informing it that it was of the assumption that the ownership of the property was inconclusive and unencumbered.
They also argued that a Clerk's Certificate from the Supreme Court shows that the Intestate Estate ownership is in dispute due to a pending lawsuit for the same property filed by the Intestate Estate of the late Daniellete P. Tucker Bernard against the Intestate Estate of the late Martha Stubblefield Bernard.
Based on that, the CDC informed the Intestate Estate of the late Martha Stubblefield Bernard that it was suspending all further discussions pending final determination of the case between Daniellete P. Tucker Bernard and the respondent.
Immediately after receiving the petitioner's letter of August 15,2024, respondent wrote a letter on August 16, 2024, reminding the petitioner about the Supreme Court's judgment of 2016. The judgement ordered the petitioner's eviction from the 4.23 acres of land. But, since the petitioner has changed its position and was challenging the ownership and title to respondent's property, by bringing in a third party, they were proceeding to the Civil Law Court for the execution and enforcement of the judgment of the Supreme Court, which was stayed due to the negotiation between petitioner and respondent for the sale of the property to the petitioner.
They also filed a petition for mandamus against the enforcement of the judgment of the Supreme Court.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The bill of information was heard and disposed of by the Supreme Court.
In their ruling, the Supreme Court held that the respondent had accepted US$360,000 as rent from the petitioner for the period 2018 to 2023, thereby establishing a landlord-tenant relationship between respondent and petitioner.
It was based on the Supreme Court's final judgment that the petitioner wrote a letter on June 4, 2025, in which it referred to the respondent's communications of August 8 and 9, 2024, in respect of the offer made at the time to petitioner for the sale of the property, and to negotiate the terms of payment. But the respondent responded to the said letter of June 4, 2025, on June 10, 2025, indicating that there was no offer from respondent to the petitioner for the sale of the property. And, that the respondent was not prepared to negotiate with the petitioner as long as they (petitioner) were on respondent's subject property.
It was the response that prompted the CDC to file the petition for specific performance.
