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

Hermios v Ministry of Internal Affairs [1998] MHSC 4; 2 MILR 127 (7 September 1998)

2 MILR 127

IN THE SUPREME COURT
REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS

S.Ct. CIVIL NO. 97-04

(High Ct. Civil No. 1994-011)

IROIJ MURJEL HERMIOS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

-v-

BRENSON S. WASE, MINISTER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS, AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS,
Defendants,

and

LITOKWA TOMEING,
Intervenor-Appellee,

-v-

HEMMY LANGMOS,
Real Party in Interest-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT

SEPTEMBER 7, 1998

FIELDS, C.J.
TAYLOR, A.J. pro tem,¹ and NGIRAKLSONG, A.J. pro term²

SUMMARY:

Appellant appealed the decision by the High Court and the Traditional Rights Court sitting together that Appellee was the alap and senior dri jerbal of the subject weto. Appellant claimed that the trial court did not consider certain evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed.

OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ALLEN P. FIELDS

In 1994, Iroijlaplap Murjel Hermios, Plaintiff, brought an action seeking to declare the lease of Telnan and Monaktal Wetos, Wotje Atoll, to be valid and that he was entitled to receive the iroij share of payment. Litokwa Tomeing, intervened claiming the iroijedrik, alap and dri jerbal rights. Hemmy Langmos filed an answer to the Intervenor claiming an equal share with the Intervenor and specifically claiming that he held the right to the alap and dri jerbal shares. In a hearing before the High Court in 1994, the lease was declared valid and the parties stipulated that Litokwa Tomeing, the Intervenor, held the iroijedrik title to the weto in question. No evidence was introduced as to the alap and dri jerbal shares and the matter was certified to the Traditional Rights Court for further Hearing. In 1997, the Traditional Rights Court and the High Court determined that, in the best interests of justice and economy, the hearing would be held jointly before the two courts. This was pursuant to Rule 13 of the Rules for Traditional Rights Court.

In 1997, evidence was introduced before the joint Courts, and the Traditional Rights Court ruled that the alap and dri jerbal rights on both Telnan and Monaktal were held presently by Litokwa Tomeing and his brothers and sisters, being the children of Iroijlaplap Tomeing. The High Court adopted the Findings of the Traditional Rights Court and entered a Judgment in favor of Litokwa Tomeing, Intervenor and Appellee. Hemmy Langmos appealed, arguing that the High Court erred in failing to require the Traditional Rights Court to comply with its procedure in considering material evidence and that the High Court erred in failing to apply the law to the findings of the Traditional Rights Court. We disagree and affirm.

1. BACKGROUND

The claims underlying this dispute and appeal were originally filed against the Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands seeking payments pursuant to a lease agreement with the Republic for use of the Wetos to build a School on Wotje Atoll. The present parties to this appeal intervened claiming certain rights to the payments. The matter went to trial on the sole issue as to who holds title to the alap and dri jerbal rights to the wetos in question.

2. DISCUSSION

Article VI, section 4 of the Marshall Islands Constitution creates the Traditional Rights Court. Subdivision (2) of that section provides that the High Court shall provide for the procedures of the Traditional Rights Court unless the Nitijela provides for these matters. In the absence of action by the Nitijela, the High Court established the Rules for Traditional Rights Court.

Article VI, section 4, subdivision (3) of the Constitution provides:

The Jurisdiction of the Traditional Rights Court shall be limited to the determination of questions relating to titles or to land rights or to other legal interests depending wholly or partly on customary law and traditional practice in the Republic of the Marshall islands.

Article VI, section 4, subdivision (5) provides:

When a question has been certified to the Traditional Rights Court for its determination under paragraph (4), its resolution of the question shall be given substantial weight in the certifying court's disposition of the legal controversy before it; but shall not be deemed binding unless the certifying court concludes that justice so requires.

The Rules for Traditional Rights Court Rule 13 provides that when the High Court and the Traditional Rights Court sit in a joint hearing:

At such a joint hearing the Trial Judge and the panel of Traditional Rights Court members shall sit as judges for the hearing of all statements, evidence and summation in the case....

Rule 14 provides that if the Trial Court concludes justice does not require that the Traditional Rights Court's resolution be resubmitted to the Traditional Rights Court, then the Trial Court shall proceed and determine all of the issues of the case. The Trial Court shall give substantial weight to the opinion of the Traditional Rights Court of the questions referred to it as required by the Constitution.

Appellant's complain that the Traditional Rights Court failed to comply with its own procedure in considering material evidence is misguided. While the appellant may not agree with the result and the determination of the Traditional Rights Court, the Statement of that Court clearly indicates the names of all the witnesses who testified as well as all documents presented and received in evidence were considered.

The question presented to the Traditional Rights Court was "Who holds both the alap and dri jerbal rights in and to Weto Telnan and Weto Monktal?" The answer was Iroijlaplap Tomeing. The court provided their reasons for so finding as follows:

1. Iroijlaplap Tomeing personally approached and asked Alap Lajinwa and Didmij, the dri jerbal, to give him Weto Ekmouj as his Imon Jerbal. After his request was granted, the iroij1aplap renamed the weto from Ekmouj to Telnan.

2. Monktal Weto was bought by Iroijlaplap Tomeing with the money he received from the Japanese as payment for their use of Telnan.

3. Evidence presented proved that Iroijlaplap Tomeing had lived on and cleaned and maintained both wetos.

The Court gave additional reasons for their findings as follows:

1. The panel realizes and believes that under Marshallese custom and practice if an iroijlaplap is physically clearing and working a parcel of land or weto, then the three (3) or four (4) land rights are owned exclusively by the iroijlaplap and his children.

2. Now, without reservations and in accordance to Custom, the panel has determined that Weto Telnan and Weto Monaktal, should be restored to the ownership of Litokwa Tomeing and his brothers and sisters being the children of Iroijlaplap Tomeing and rightful heirs of the rights of alap and dri jerbal.

Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the Traditional Rights Court has failed to consider evidence under the will of Iroijlaplap Langmos, the Iroij Book, and receipts for the shares issued by the Republic of the Marshall Islands Government to Langmos. All of these items were introduced in evidence and are listed in the decision of the Traditional Rights Court. It is clear that the Court had all those items in mind when reaching its decision. The Iroijlaplap Murjel Hermios also testified that the shares belong to Litokwa Tomeing and his brothers and sisters. Any action or statements made after the hearing are not before this court. The record clearly discloses that the Traditional Rights Court acted in accordance with the Constitution, Article VI, section 4, (3) and the Rules of the Court, and answered the question as to who is entitled to the title and land rights depending wholly or partly on customary law and traditional practice in the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

The trial court did not commit reversible error in accepting the findings of the Traditional Rights Court. Rule 13, supra, declares that "all statements, evidence and summations in the case" are to be submitted to the joint panel of the High Court and the Traditional Rights Court. The High Court heard all evidence as did the Traditional Rights Court and found that any alleged waiver did not exist to defeat Litokwa Tomeing's right to the title or land rights to Telnan and Monaktal wetos. The courts found that the wetos in question belonged to the father of Litokwa Tomeing and not the father of Hemmy Langmos, appellant herein. Thus the father of Langmos could not include a division of them in his will (Kalimur), since he had no interest in them to convey. That very Kalimur provides for the procedures for resolving future disputes. The parties are before the courts now to resolve their disputes. These wetos were not the subject matter of prior court actions and there can be no claim of waiver resulting from the prior proceedings. All claims of waiver should have been presented to the joint hearing of the two courts.

Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Dennis Reeder, counsel for Appellant
Rosalie Aten Konou, counsel for Appellee

___________

¹Honorable Marty W.K. Taylor, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, sitting by designation by the Cabinet.

²Honorable Arthur Ngiraklsong, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Palau, sitting by designation by the Cabinet.