By Yassah J. Wright
The sixth judicial circuit, Civil Law Court, ‘B’ of Judge Peter Gbeneweleh, is expected to make a decision whether or not, the jury verdict in the highly contested intestate estate of the late Millad Hage, should be set aside for a new trial.
The case is between Oumou Hage Sirleaf, and her step daughter, Nohad Hage Mensah, that is expected to be delivered on November 28, 2025.
The jury unanimously found Nadal Hage Mensah guilty of falsifying deeds belonging to Milad Hage’s estate without the consent, and knowledge of her siblings and her step mother.
But in her motion for new trial, Nadal Hage Mensah’s lawyers argued that the verdict is clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence adduced.
“This trial jury ignored and disregard this court’s instruction in their deliberation of the matter,” the motion for the new trial argued.
They further argued that her deeds are all older than her step mother, and her siblings, and the said surveyor testified to the validity of her deeds and to his survey report.
According to her, the evidence clearly showed that it is her step mother, who committed mischief,
misrepresentation-fraud in that their deeds are with Ecobank, because Mr. Milard/k. Hage took a loan, is a claim that was shown
to be false and misleading.
They claim that Oumou Sirleaf, who in fact was the mortgagor-the one, who took the loan, and gave her version of deeds
to the banks and not Milard Hage.
In counter-argument. Omou’s lawyers said.
The unanimous jury verdict rendered in a fraud in title proceeding certified to this Honorable Court by the Monthly, and Probate Court for Montserrado County pursuant to a clear mandate of the Honorable Supreme Court dated
September 5, 2022.
According to her, the Motion is procedurally defective, jurisdictionally void, and substantively baseless, in that: This Civil Law Court is without authority or jurisdiction to entertain a motion for a new trial or to enter final judgment in a matter originating from the Probate Court, and certified only for jury determination of a factual issue; “Nadal Hage Mensah has failed to satisfy any of the statutory grounds for granting a new trial under
Civil Procedure Law 26.4; and the jury’s verdict, being fully supported by the evidence and reached in accordance with the law, cannot be disturbed by the trial judge except in circumstances recognized by the Supreme Court, which is totally absent in this case.”
According to them, the Motion for New Trial is nothing, but a collateral attack on the jury’s fact-finding role and an impermissible invitation to this Court to depart from the Supreme Court’s mandate, which the law absolutely forbids.
They further argued that it is a clear instruction of the Supreme Court in the case Oumou Sirleaf Hage et al versus Judge Boima
Kontoe and Nohad Hage, Decided September 5, 2022, states that the “…..matter is remanded to
the lower court with the instruction that the probate court shall certify the question of title to the
Sixth Judicial Circuit for Montserrado County for a trial by jury as a matter of law, and the verdict
transmitted to the probate court pursuant to the enforcement of count of this Court’s Mandate, ibid; and thereafter proceed in keeping with law.” Count “h” of the Supreme Court
Mandate in the case His Honor J. Vinton Holder, and Bassam H. Jawhary versus Oumou Sirleaf
Hage et al, Decided January 24, 2014, reads as Determine whether or not the property of properties covered by the lease agreement, include properties owned by the children of Milad Hage and Oumou Sirleaf-Hage, and if so, render void the lease agreement by and between Oumou Sirleaf Hage and Malid R. Hage Insofar as it covers and relates to the properties owned by said.
During the motions for new trial argument, Cllr. Arthur T. Johnson, indicated that order forthwith that the jury’s verdict be transmitted to the probate court for final decree or ruling in strict compliance with the Supreme Court’s mandate in Oumou Hage etolv Nohad Hage Mensoh.