CDC to be Evicted as Petition for Property Sale Dismissed by Civil Law Court; Judge Smith Says No Valid Contract Exists with Intestate Estate

By G. Watson Richards, Judicial Reporter

The Civil Law Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, has denied and dismissed a Petition for Specific Performance filed by the Congress for Democratic Change (CDC) against the Intestate Estate of the late Martha Stubblefield Bernard, represented by Administrator Ebrima Varney Dempster.

The ruling, delivered by His Honor Judge:

George W. Smith on August 1, 2025, comes after months of legal wrangling between the CDC and the estate over a contested 4.23-acre parcel of land in Monrovia, currently serving as the party’s national headquarters.

Background of the Case:

The dispute originates from a 2016 Supreme Court judgment, which affirmed the estate’s ownership of the property and ordered the eviction of both the CDC and the Testate Estate of the late William Thomas Bernard, Sr.

To prevent enforcement of the eviction order, the CDC initiated negotiations to purchase the property from the estate.

In the process, the CDC paid a Bill of Cost totaling US$55,000 and US$330,000 in rent for the period 2018 to 2023.

Following these payments, the estate extended to CDC a right of first refusal to purchase the land—initially quoting a price of US$2.5 million, which was later corrected to US$4.5 million in a subsequent communication.

However, citing a Clerk’s Certificate from the Supreme Court of Liberia that indicated a competing ownership claim by the Estate of Danielette P. Tucker Bernard, the CDC suspended further discussions, stating it would wait for the resolution of the ongoing litigation before proceeding.

Court’s Analysis:

In his ruling, Judge Smith found that no binding contract existed between the CDC and the estate.

Although the estate made an offer, the CDC never formally accepted the corrected price of US$4.5 million.

The Court ruled that the CDC’s response amounted to a rejection or counteroffer, not an acceptance.

The Judge stressed key legal principles:

A contract for the sale of real estate must be in writing and signed by both parties.

A mere exchange of letters or discussions does not constitute a legally enforceable agreement.

The Court cannot compel a property owner to sell without a valid and binding contract.

“There has hitherto been no meeting of minds,” Judge Smith said, citing the legal doctrine of consensus ad idem, which requires mutual understanding and agreement on essential terms.

“This Court cannot decree specific performance where no contract exists.”

Supreme Court’s Earlier Position:

In a related earlier ruling, the Supreme Court of Liberia held that the CDC’s payment of rent to the estate had created a landlord-tenant relationship, not a buyer-seller dynamic.

This further undermined the CDC’s claim of having entered into a valid purchase agreement.

Implications and Next Steps

With the Petition for Specific Performance denied, the ruling clears the way for enforcement of the 2016 Supreme Court judgment—potentially leading to the CDC’s eviction from the disputed property.

Unless the decision is overturned on appeal or a new, valid sales agreement is executed, the CDC may be required to vacate its headquarters.

Legal analysts say the case underscores the critical importance of formalized contracts, particularly in high-value property transactions involving political or institutional actors.