In a petition for a writ of prohibition served the Probate Court on October 5, the Supreme Court said a comprehensive audit should be conducted for both the period the executor administered the Hage Estate and the period Ecobank collected proceeds of the estate to cover loans given by the Ecobank to the late Hage, to ensure that no illegal or irregular acts were perpetrated on the Estate.

The Court said the audit shall include recommendations of steps and actions to be taken in the event of any findings of improper collection or use of the estate’s funds by any of the fiduciaries adding, “the foregoing acts shall be without prejudice to any actions commenced or pending in any courts of the Republic by or between any of the parties named herein.”

The Court also ordered the appellant to submit to the Probate Court for Montserrado County a comprehensive inventory of the Hage Estate’s assets, as well as liabilities, as required by the Decedents Estate Law.

The Supreme Court further said the appellant must furnish the Probate Court with a detailed statement of the status of the loan facility the Hage Estates has with the Ecobank, saying that the Court should ensure that the appellant establishes an account in the name of the Hage Estate, if such account is not already established into which all monies belonging to the Hage Estate are deposited.

The operation of this account, according to the Supreme Court, shall be with the approval of the Probate Court for Montserrado County.
The Supreme Court of Liberia also wants investigation into the allegations of malpractices allegedly committed by the appellant in his handling of the Hage Estate properties, including the estate’s funds, and revoke the appellant’s letter of testament in the event that the investigation conducted pursuant to the above reveals that the appellant has engaged in misconduct or mismanagement of the affairs of the Hage Estate.

The High Court also ordered the Probate Court to determine whether or not the lease agreement executed by and between Oumou Sirleaf-Hage and Milad R. Hage has expired in accordance with its terms and conditions, and in the event that said lease agreement is determined to be expired, the appellant must return all properties covered by the lease agreement to Oumou Sirleaf-Hage.

”Determine whether or not the property or properties covered by the lease agreement include properties owned by the children of Milad R. Hage and Oumou Sirleaf-Hage, and if so, render void the lease agreement by and between Oumou Sirleaf-Hage and Milad R. Hage insofar as it covers and relates to the properties owned by said children,” the Supreme Court further instructed the Monthly and Probate Court.
LINA RS/CMJ/GDJ/TSS/JKW