By Precious D. Freeman
Justice in Chamber, Yussif Kaba, has declined to issue the writ of prohibition prayed for by Gracious Ride Management.
The documents issued by the Supreme Court stated: “Considering the attached communication from the respondent, you are hereby informed that the justice has declined to issue the writ prayed for by petitioner, reserving the rights to the respondent to proceed in keeping with law.”
The Justice in Chamber’s decision was based on the writ of prohibition by Gracious Ride requesting the high court to prevent the task force from confiscating the taxis, based on purported ownership.
However, it is believed that the Management of Gracious Ride failed to report before the Supreme Court, legal ownership documents as requested on April 1.
The court had requested the Gracious Ride Management to provide the legal capacity document with an ultimatum of five days, which expired last Friday, April 5, 2024.
Following the seizure of the company’s vehicles by the Asset Recovery Task Force, a claim was made by the company’s purported manager, Francis T. Blama, that he owns the seized vehicles.
However, Blama’s legal authority to represent the company in the matter was questioned by the Supreme Court, highlighting potential discrepancies in the lawsuit filed by Blama without proper authorization.
The company’s vehicles, predominantly taxis, were recently seized by the Asset Recovery Task Force, on grounds that they were acquired through fraudulent means by a former top government official, pointing fingers at President George Weah’s Chief of Protocol, Finda Bundoo.
However, the company’s manager then argued that the task force is in error over the ownership of the vehicles, as he is the actual owner of the company.
He therefore filed for a Writ of Prohibition to prevent the task force from confiscating the taxis, based on his purported ownership.
The request was partly accepted by Associate Justice Yussif Kaba, currently the Justice in Chamber at the Supreme Court, who imposed a temporary suspension on the working of the task force, and subsequently instructed the return of all the vehicles seized during its operations, until the conclusion of the Monday, April 1 conference.
It was at this conference that Kaba noticed that Blama lacked the necessary authorization from a board resolution or legal standing to initiate the lawsuit on behalf of the company.
The court noted that the lawsuit was solely based on Blama’s authority as a manager, without proper documentation empowering him to act on behalf of the company.
“While perusing the complaint, it was realized that Blama, in his capacity as manager of the plaintiff company, had authorized himself to sign, verify, and file the present suit,” the court said.
It was due to this that Kaba issued the ultimatum.
The present suit, therefore, has been filed merely on the strength of the claims made by Blama, who, accordingly, had no legal standing to do so.
