2 Mins Read
ADNews-Monrovi,Liberia: A prolonged land dispute involving Criminal Court “E” Resident Circuit Judge Kuku Y. Dorbor, as plaintiff, and Roberto S. Roberts, as defendant, has taken a new turn after the Liberia Land Authority (LLA) distanced itself from a court ruling that reportedly resulted in the takeover of Roberts’ property, valued at approximately US$500,000.
Documents in the possession of Afric Daily News indicate that the Liberia Land Authority conducted an investigative survey into the disputed property and recommended that the plaintiff be allowed to re-demarcate her property in accordance with the information contained in her deed.
The LLA’s findings also indicated that the plaintiff and the defendant had the same chain of title, raising questions about the circumstances surrounding the disputed property and the subsequent court proceedings.
In a recent communication, the LLA clarified that its investigative survey report did not form the basis of the court’s ruling.
According to the Authority, the investigative survey was conducted in accordance with the applicable technical standards, procedures, and practices of the Liberia Land Authority.
“The Investigative Survey Report was prepared based on the evidence, information, and materials presented to the investigators during the course of the investigation,” the LLA stated.
The Authority further clarified that its recommendation was limited to the re-demarcation of the plaintiff’s property and did not call for the demolition or destruction of any existing property.
“The recommendation contained in the Investigative Survey Report was for the re-demarcation of the plaintiff’s property. The report did not recommend the demolition of any property, as alleged or understood from your complaint,” the LLA said.
The clarification appears to draw a distinction between the technical recommendation made by the land authority and the subsequent action taken through the court.
The LLA also stated that the court’s decision was not based on its investigative survey report.
“Rather, based on the information reviewed by the Authority, the matter was determined through a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff following your and your legal representation’s failure to appear and defend the matter before the court,” the Authority stated.
The latest clarification from the LLA raises further questions about how the investigative survey was considered in the legal proceedings and whether the actions taken against the disputed property were consistent with the Authority’s recommendation.
The dispute remains a matter of concern as questions surrounding the ownership, demarcation, and legal disposition of the property continue to unfold.
Comments are closed.