By Jacqueline Dennis
MONROVIA – Mutual Benefits Assurance Company (MBA) is set to file a petition before the Supreme Court seeking to halt the enforcement of a US$11.2-million judgment rendered against it by the Commercial Court of Liberia.
The petition challenges the basis of the judgment, which stems from a foreign arbitral award rendered in London on January 23, 2017, against the International Construction Engineering Company (ICEC), for which Mutual had issued performance bonds.
Mutual Benefits Assurance Company noted that the Liberian Commercial Court issued a Writ of Execution on July 8, 2025, ordering the seizure and sale of the company’s property to satisfy the award despite MBA never being notified or participating in, the arbitration proceedings.
However, MBA emphasized that the respondents must show they were represented at the London arbitration, or the judgment must be vacated.
The company’s petition argues that the judgment being enforced violates both the Liberian Constitution and international conventions to which Liberia is a party. Article 20(a) of the 1986 Constitution guarantees that “No person shall be deprived of property… except as the outcome of a hearing judgment consistent with… due process of law.”
Additionally, Section 25.12 of Liberia’s Civil Procedure Law makes clear that a foreign judgment cannot be enforced against a party, who did not appear in the foreign proceedings.
MBA maintains no dispute that it was not informed of the London arbitration proceedings, although its performance bonds were central to the claims.
According to the MBA, the argument is bolstered by two prior rulings from the Supreme Court. In a July 27, 2022 ruling, the Supreme Court echoed its finding of August 10, 2015 when it held as “the Petitioner Mutual Benefit Assurance Company had the right to protect and defend its interests under any indemnity contract/bond it had issued on behalf of ICEC, which in essence was a reversal of the Commercial Court’s ruling.” 2) “The records attest that the Petitioner, Mutual Benefit Assurance Company was not made a party to the arbitration proceedings in London, although its performance bonds on behalf of ICEC were made integral parts of the agreement.
A subsequent ruling on February 18, 2025, noted that Bea Mountain initiated the action against MBA after being armed with the arbitral award finalized in London.
The Commercial Court’s ruling, according to records, is: “The underlying contract subject to the arbitration was issued by Mutual Benefits Assurance Company (MBA) to guarantee performance by International Construction Engineering Company (ICEC). The award having determined nonperformance by ICEC, which performance was guaranteed by MBA, obligates MBA to Bea Mountain.” This, some believe, is a confession that the MBA was denied due process.
The court reasons that MBA guaranteed performance by ICEC, and because the arbitration found ICEC liable, therefore, Mutual is liable. MBA is seeking a Writ of Prohibition from the Supreme Court to immediately halt execution proceedings and reopen the company’s premises, which were closed following the issuance of a writ of execution.
The petition asks the Court to command the Commercial Court and Bea Mountain to show cause why the judgment should not be permanently stayed, citing lack of jurisdiction and violations of constitutional rights.
“This is a defining moment for the rule of law in Liberia,” said a senior attorney familiar with the case. “If a company can be held liable in a foreign arbitration it never attended, without notice, without representation—then no business is safe. Today it’s Mutual. Tomorrow it could be any other institution.”
The case is already drawing attention from legal scholars and civil society. MBA has issued a public call to the Press Union of Liberia, the Liberia National Bar Association, civil society organizations, development partners, and advocates for the rule of law to monitor the proceedings closely. However, the key principle articulated under Article V(b) of the 1958 New York Convention (to which Liberia is a party) allows refusal of enforcement if the award debtor was not given notice or was unable to present their case. The consequence is that the arbitral award on which the judgment is based becomes unenforceable against the non-participating party under both domestic and international law.
