The decision as to whether or not the US$700,000 damages case against ECObank will hold now rests on the discretion of the Supreme Court Chambers Justice Yamie Qui-qui Gbeisay.
This bank filed a Writ of Certiorari against Judge Scheaplor R. Dunbar of the Civil Law Court “B” at the Temple of Justice in Monrovia, pleading with the Justice-In-Chambers to place a stay order on the proceedings. The request was contested on yesterday, January 23, 2025 and ruling reserved.
Wilmot Smith, former Deputy Director General for Information Coordination at the Liberia Institute of Statistic of Geo-Information Services (LISGIS) filed the case resulting from a complaint alleging that the bank colluded with Alex Williams, former Deputy Director for Statistics, and Martin Kollie, who illegally obtained the account statements of LISGIS and same was published on the Spoon TV network.
It all started when Smith alleged that Mr. Stanton Witherspoon and the management of Spoon TV engaged in a slanderous and libelous campaign to harm and defame, embarrass and humiliate him.
He said the slanderous and libelous campaign was carried out on Spoon TV, social media, news network and other performs including radio stations for a period of three months.
According to Smith, it was one of the bank’s employees Yussif Kromah, who leaked the account statement of LISGIS to Williams and Spoon TV, who manipulated the documents accusing him of diverting over US$1.2 million from the accounts that were meant to pay enumerators for the National Housing and Population Census of 2022.
Smith is seeking the amounts in the tune of US$500,000 in general damages and US$200,000 in punitive damages for allegedly colluding to share LISGIS statement with non-signatory of the account.
On yesterday, January 23, 2025, Justice Gbeisay cited the both parties along with Judge Dunbar to a conference to decide as to whether or not he should review the Judge Dunbar’s judgment, denying Ecobank, co-defendant’s request not to separate its trial from Alex Williams, former Deputy Director General for Statistics and Data Processing at Liberia Institute of Statistics and Geo Information Services (LISGIS).
Justice Gbeisay heard oral arguments over Ecobank’s claim that Williams’ trial should not have been separated from that of the bank. Earlier, Dunbar had ruled that Williams’ lawyers were not served with the court’s document that could have brought him under the jurisdiction of the court.
This news outlet has in its possession a document which shows that Williams was initially served with the assignment, but his lawyers had argued that they did not receive anything from the court for the hearing.
In the midst of the claims and counter claims that Judge Dunbar decided to accept the separate trial request for Williams, the decision did not go down well with the bank, who subsequently filed a Writ of Certiorari before Justice Gbeisay.
Ecobank’s argument is that Williams had been joined by the court as one of the co-defendants in the case, therefore, they should not be given its request for separate trial, although it was Williams that requested for it. But Williams’ argument is that neither his lawyers nor he had been notified of the commencement of the trial of the case.
Unfortunately, after Williams’ argument, Judge Dunbar directed that an examination of the court’s record be conducted to verify service of the notice of assignment on Williams’ lawyers at which time it was established that the notice was not served on any of them, but the Judge gives the lawyers two working days to get Williams to testify in court.
After the two days, Williams’ lawyers returned to the court and asked for separate trials which were granted by the Judge. Minutes after Judge Dunbar granted Williams’s request, the co-defendant proceeded to put an objection on the records of the proceedings on grounds that the judge was proceeding wrongly because the trial had progressed to the final stage, but the judge denied them the opportunity to fulfil their obligations on the records. They also accused Judge Dunbar of denying Ecobank the opportunity of resisting the application made and restricted them to only note an exception of the ruling.
“The denial by the judge of its rights to resist the application was a travesty of justice and denial of their rights,” Ecobank’s Writ of Certiorari noted. The bank said Judge Dunbar erred when he granted a separate trial when a jury had already been empaneled and the trial had commenced against all four defendants.
“Section 6.5 of the Civil Procedure Law cited and relied upon is that the judge provides for separate trial before the commencement of trial,” the bank further argues.
Ecobank’s Writ of Certiorari argued that in the case, the trial had progressed to its final stage and it was erroneous for the judge to have granted said application because the bank had rested with the production of evidence in the case when suddenly William’s lawyers appeared.
By T.Q. Lula Jaurey
