A fresh legal controversy has emerged surrounding the disputed 4.23-acre property on Tubman Boulevard formerly occupied by the opposition Congress for Democratic Change (CDC), as court records and witness testimony reveal claims of a private land transaction allegedly connected to the estate’s prolonged legal battle for ownership.
At the center of the case is Dr. C. Nelson Oniyama, General Manager of Monrovia Breweries Incorporated, who has filed a Petition for Specific Performance before His Honor Nelson B. Chineh of the Sixth Judicial Circuit Civil Law Court against the Intestate Estate of the late Martha Stubblefield Bernard and its administrator, Ebrima Varney Dempster.
The petition seeks to compel the estate to honor two Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) allegedly executed in 2016 for the sale of eight lots from the same disputed property that later became the subject of the CDC eviction and demolition controversy. Court documents indicate that Dr. Oniyama claims to have paid US$132,000 toward the transaction but has allegedly received neither a deed, legal title, nor possession of the land.
During the 40th Day Jury Sitting of the March Term A.D. 2026 before His Honor Nelson B. Chineh, Dr Nelson Oniyama personally took the witness stand and narrated how the arrangement allegedly began. According to his testimony, sometime around April 30, 2016, he was contacted by Counselor F. Musah Dean Jr., who arranged a meeting at Riverside Resort with Ebrima Dempster.
At that meeting, Dr.Oniyama testified that Dempster informed him that the estate was engaged in active litigation before the Supreme Court and needed financial support to sustain the legal battle. “He offered to sell eight lots of land to me in order to finance his case,” Dr.Oniyama told the court.
The witness further testified that Dempster allegedly assured him that once the estate prevailed before the Supreme Court and regained possession of the property, deeds would subsequently be issued to him.
According to Dr. Oniyama, the parties then executed an initial Memorandum of Understanding on April 30, 2016. A second MOU was allegedly signed on August 5, 2016, after Dempster reportedly requested that two additional lots be added to the arrangement to raise money “for his kids.”
The Breweries Incorporated Inc General Manager also informed the court that Dempster later issued receipts and confirmations acknowledging payments made under the agreements.
The petitioner told the court that after reading newspaper reports indicating that Dempster and the estate had prevailed in the land dispute and regained possession of the property, he instructed his lawyers to demand compliance with the agreements. According to the petition, the estate allegedly agreed to sell the lots at US$55,000 each, while two additional lots were later valued at US$41,250 apiece.
He noted that during the agreement a phased payment structure beginning with an initial US$10,000 payment, followed by US$45,000 for due diligence, US$250,000 upon completion of survey and registration processes, and a final balance of US$135,000.
However, one clause now attracting significant legal scrutiny explicitly stated that subdivision and survey of the land would only occur “immediately after the litigation is ended and the Party of the First Part is repossessed of 4.23 acres of land.”
That provision alone raises serious questions about whether both parties knowingly entered into an agreement over property that was still under active litigation at the time.
In their official response before His Honor George W. Smith, lawyers representing the estate rejected both the factual and legal basis of Oniyama’s claims.
Their defense rests on three principal arguments. First, the estate argues that Ebrima Dempster lacked unilateral authority to execute any binding agreement involving estate property because the estate had two administrators Dempster and Walker Richards who were legally required to act jointly.
Second, the respondents contend that even if Dempster had acted alone, no estate administrator possesses legal authority to sell estate property without prior approval from the Monthly and Probate Court. According to the estate, no such authorization was ever obtained.
Third, the respondents argue that Dr. Oniyama knowingly entered into the transaction while the property remained under active litigation, making enforcement of the agreements legally problematic. The estate therefore maintains that the agreements are unenforceable and void.
