Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of the Marshall Islands

Rang et al v Lajwa [1990] MHSC 9; 1 MILR (Rev) 214 (23 November 1990)

1 MILR (Rev.) 214

IN THE SUPREME COURT
REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS

S.Ct. CIVIL NO. 90-05
(High Ct. Civil No. 1986-160)

ROBIN RANG and NETIN ZACKAIAS,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

-v-

LANUWA LAJWA,
Defendant-Appellant.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

NOVEMBER 23, 1990

ASHFORD, C.J.

SUMMARY:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the notice of appeal failed to include a concise statement of the questions presented.

DIGEST:

1. APPEAL AND ERROR – Dismissal, Grounds for – Failure to Identify Errors: Failure to include in the notice of appeal a concise statement of the questions presented is grounds for dismissal.

Defendant-Appellant's Notice of Appeal states, as its grounds:

(F)irst, the Findings of Fact by the Traditional Rights Court and the Trial Judge and their application and interpretation of Marshallese culture and land laws are erroneous; and secondly, the Trial Judge's conclusion of law was in error as well.

[1] Rule 3 of the Marshall Islands Appellate Rules of Procedure requires the notice of appeal to "contain a concise statement of the questions presented by the appeal" and warn that the Court will not consider any questions not set forth in the notice or fairly comprised therein. Counsel for Appellees correctly contends there is no notice at all concerning the alleged errors and questions to be raised on appeal. The notice alleges bare conclusions of error without specifying the basis of those conclusions.

The notice is so defective as to warrant dismissal of the appeal as provided for in Rule 20(a). Mereb v. Orrenges, 8 TTR 123 (App. Div., Palau District, 1980); Korok v. Lok, et al., MILR (Rev.) 93, 95 (Feb 25, 1988).

ORDERED: The motion is granted. This appeal is dismissed.