TRIAL DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT

MARSHALL ISLANDS DISTRICT

Civil Action No. 11

LALIK
Plaintiff

v.

LAZARUS S. and JATIOS
Defendants

June 21, 1954

Action to determine alab and dri jerbal rights to land on Delap Island, Majuro Atoll. The Trial Division of the High Court, Chief Justice E. P. Furber, held that where acting alab and dri jerbal could not get along peaceably together on their land, iroij lablab acted reasonably in taking away their subordinate rights, pursuant to his duty to make reasonable effort to maintain peace and order on his lands.
1. Marshalls Land Law-"Iroij Lablab"--Powers
	Under Marshallese custom, power of iroij lablab to take away subordinate rights in land is time-honored.
2. Marshalls Land Law-"Iroij Lablab"-Powers
	Where iroij lablab took away alab and dri jerbal rights in land due to fact acting alab and dri jerbal could not get along peaceably together, his action was reasonable.
3. Marshalls Land Law-Use Rights
	Under Marshallese system of land tenure, there is strong obligation on all those holding various rights in piece of land at same time to co-operate in reasonable and friendly manner.
4. Marshalls Land Law-Use Rights
	Under Marshallese system of land tenure, there is obligation on all those holding various rights in piece of land at same time to be loyal to those up the line and to protect welfare of those down the line.
5. Marshalls Land Law-"Iroij Lablab"-Obligations
	Under Marshallese custom, iroij lablab is expected to make reasonable effort to maintain peace and order on his lands.
6. Marshalls Land Law-"Iroij Lablab"-Powers
	Determinations made by iroij lablab with regard to his lands are entitled to great weight, and it is to be supposed they are reasonable unless it is clear they are not.
7. Marshalls Land Law-"Iroij Lablab"-Powers
	Determination by iroij lablab to give land as katleb to third party after taking away others' rights therein was properly within his powers, and decision is binding upon parties.
8. Courts-Parties
	Where government is not a party to suit, judgment does not give any rights as against it on account of airfield on land in question.
FURBER, Chief Justice
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Shortly after the typhoon of 1918, Lanimon, while alab (person in immediate charge of a piece of land), with the approval of the iroij lablab (paramount chief), made an establishment of alab and dri jerbal rights on the land in question under which Lanimon's brother's daughter Litarel, who already had dri jerbal rights there, became in effect the acting alab and entitled to the alab's share from the land, and to succeed Lanimon as alab on his death, and the defendant Jatios and his bwij became dri jerbal with the definite stipulation that they should take care of Litarel.
2. Litarel and Jatios got along well together on the land under the above arrangement for many years, but in the late 1930's and continuing into the early 1940's they got into a series of disputes, with each of them finally refusing to recognize the rights of the other and each refusing to pay the other any part of the copra proceeds.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. This action was tried with that of Lalik against Elsen, 1 TTR 134, and is largely governed by the conclusions of law set forth there.
[1-6] 2. There is, however, the additional question of whether it was within the powers of Iroij Lablab Lainlen to take away all of the alab and dri jerbal rights in the land about 1941, while Lanimon was still alive, and then about a year later give the land to the defendant Lazarus as katleb land, as it was agreed he purported to do. (Katleb is land allocated by an iroij lablab to an individual commoner.) The power of an iroij lablab to take away subordinate rights in land for a good reason, is a time honored one. The reason given for taking away the rights in this instance was that Litarel, the acting alab, and Jatios as dri jerbal, could not get along peaceably together on the land, and Lanimon did not succeed in controlling the situation. Under the Marshallese system of land tenure, there is a strong obligation on the part of all of those holding various rights in a piece of land at the same time, to cooperate in a reasonable and friendly manner. There is an obligation of loyalty up the line, and an obligation to protect the welfare of those down the line. The iroij lablab is also expected, among other things, to make a reasonable effort to maintain peace and order on his lands. As indicated in the pre-trial order, Litarel stated in open court that she now claimed no rights whatever in the land, and had accepted Iroij Lablab Lainlen's decision. Under these circumstances the court cannot say, on the basis of the evidence presented, that Iroij Lablab Lainlen did not have a good reason for his action, and as explained in the conclusions of law by this court in the case of Limine v. Lainej, 1 TTR 107, determinations made by an iroij lablab with regard to his lands are entitled to great weight, and it is to be supposed that they are reasonable unless it is clear that they are not.
[7] 3. The court therefore holds that Iroij Lablab Lainlen's purported action in this instance in taking away all of the alab and dri jerbal rights in the land, and later giving the land to the defendant Lazarus S. as katleb land, was properly within the powers of the iroij lablab, that his determination is binding upon the parties, and that the defendant Lazarus S. is the alab and is entitled to exercise the dri jerbal rights in the land.
[8] 4. Attention is invited to the fact that it was agreed by all the parties that the land in question is now a part of the airfield used by the government, but the government was not a party and no relief was sought against it by any of the parties. The judgment herein does not purport to give any rights as against the government.
JUDGMENT
It is ordered, adjudged and decreed as follows:-
1. As between the parties and all persons claiming under them, the alab and dri jerbal rights in Monketem Wato on Delap Island, Majuro Atoll, are as follows:­
(a) The defendant Lazarus S., individually and not as a member of any group, is the alab and is also entitled to exercise the dri jerbal rights in it.
(b) Neither the plaintiff Lalik and his bwij nor the defendant Jatios and his bwij have any rights of owner-ship in it.
2. This judgment shall not affect any rights of way there may be over the land in question.
3. No costs are assessed against any party.