9/16/2020 NATIONAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION V AMOS SIEH SIEBO-MOTION TO DISMISS-FINAL JUDGMENT – case it must first assure itself that it is jurisdictionally clothed with the authority to hear and determine the appeal on the merits, but also that its action and consideration of the merits of the case and judgment entered therefrom are sanctioned by law; for if the law does not sanction such action or confer such jurisdiction, the rendition of a judgment in the case would be a usurpation of power and would make the judgment itself coram non judice and ipso facto void. Ministry of Labor et al., v. Natt, Supreme Court Opinion, October Term, 2007; Scanship v. Flomo, 41 LLR 181, 188 (2002); Ministry of Lands Mines and Energy v. Liberty Gold, Supreme Court Opinion, march Term, 2013. The Supreme Court, in a plethora of Opinions, both of the distant past and in more recent times, has opined that: “Whenever the issue of a court’s jurisdiction is raised, every other thing in the case becomes subordinated until the court has determined its jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the particular matter. This is true because if a court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a matter, whatever decision or judgment is rendered by it is a legal nullity. Therefore, it is necessary that the court should determine its jurisdiction over the question which its judgment assumes to answer or give relief.” MIM Liberia Corporation v. Toweh, 30 LLR 611(1983); Kamara v. Chea & Satto, 31 LLR 511 (1983); Scanship (LIB) Inc., v. Flomo, 41 LLR 181, 186(2002); The Intestate Estate of the late Chief Murphey-Vey John et al. v. The Intestate Estate of the late Bendu Kaidii et al., 41LLR 277, 282 (2002); The Management of Paynesville City Corporation v. The Aggrieved Workers of Paynesville City Corporation, Supreme Court Opinion, March Term, A. D. 2013; Loiuse Clarke-Tarr v. Daniel K. Wright, Supreme Court Opinion, March Term, A. D. 2015. Given the facts herein, as revealed by the records certified to this Court, and the laws referenced above, the query then is whether the respondent/ appellant complied with the procedure prescribed either by the legislature under the Elections Law, enacted pursuant to the authority granted by Article 34 of the Constitution, or with the Regulations and Guidelines prescribed by the National Elections Commission, promulgated pursuant to the powers conferred upon that Body by the Elections Law, as would enable this Court to acquire jurisdiction over the case and judiciary.gov.lr/national-elections-commission-v-amos-sieh-siebo-motion-to-dismiss-final-judgment/ 24/36