8/26/2020 Jupica vs Nec – Supreme Court of Liberia 9. That as to the entire petition, 1st Respondent says same should be denied, dismissed and set aside for failure to verify or improper verification. 1st Respondent says that there are several petitioners in the above captioned action for prohibition. The law controlling contemplates and requires that an affidavit to a petition for the writ of prohibition, filed by petitioner/petitioners, must be verified by each and all petitioners. The records reveal that the affidavit attached to Petitioners’ petition is only verified by co-petitioner, Blamoh Nelson. Accordingly, Petitioners’ petition should be stricken as if it were never filed. For reliance, see: Civil Procedure Law, Chapter 9.4(1), 9.4(2b), and 9.4(5), 1 LCLR pages 107-108; see also King vs. King, 23 LLR 418 (May 24, 1974, holding that an “application for a writ of prohibition must be duly verified by the party himself and not by counsel”). 10.Further to count 9 above, 1st Respondent says that the affidavit to a petition for prohibition must be signed by the petitioner/s. The record in this petition reveals that Concerned Group of Eminent Citizens, the Movement for Progressive Change, the Leaders of Political Parties, represented by Blamoh Nelson and J. Emmanuel Z. Bowier, John Ballon, Milton Nathaniel Barnes all of whom did not execute the attached affidavit. The authenticity of the petition is therefore questionable and hence the said petition as filed should be ignored and the entire petition dismissed and 1st Respondent so prays. For reliance, and in addition to the citations provided in count 1 above, see also the opinion of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case: National Vision Party of Liberia et al v. National Elections Commission, page 17 (decided March 2014, holding that our “statute does not treat a failure to verify or improper verification as a harmless error”). 11. Still further to count 9 above, 1st Respondent says that there are six petitioners named in the petition and contrary to law, only Blamoh Nelson signed the affidavit which constitutes improper verification which is a fatal error. 1st Respondent says that Article 26 of the 1986 Constitution of Liberia provides thus: ’’Where any person any association alleges that any of the rights granted under the constitution or any legislation or directives are constitutionally contravened, that person or association may invoke the privilege and benefit of court’s direction, order or writ, including a judgment of unconstitutionality; any one injured by an act of the Government or any person acting under its authority whether in property, contract, tort or otherwise, shall have the right to bring suit for appropriate redress. All such suits brought against the government shall originate in the claim court; appeals from judgment of the claim court shall lie directly to the Supreme Court.” 1st Respondent says therefore that this petition is improperly venued and should be dismissed. 13.And also because as to the entire petition, 1st Respondent says that prohibition will not lie where a respondent is performing a legal duty and has neither exceeded its duty nor had assumed jurisdiction not granted it by law. For reliance, see Kaba & McCromsy v. Township of Gardnersville. 39LLR 549. 14.And also because as to the entire petition, 1st Respondent says that it has acted pursuant to law. Under Article 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of Liberia when the Resolution of the Legislature is approved by the President as in this case, said resolution then have the full force and effect of the law. 1st Respondent says that pursuant to the Resolution approved by the President is legal and therefore prohibition will lie. comnetitsolutionsinc.org/toj/jupica-vs-nec-2/ 17/27