SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE MAKIRA LOCAL COURT

NGORANGORA/TAGARU LAND

BETWEEN:

CHRISTIAN WATEOHA - FOR MOREMAE TRIBE
PLAINTIFF

AND:

EDMOND MEHARE - FOR KAWAKE TRIBE
DEFENDANT

HEARING: 21st October 2013
JUDGMENT: 10thJune 2014

This is a Judgment of Ngorangora land dispute between Christiane Wateoha the Plaintiff on behalf of Moremae tribe and Edmond Mehare the Defendant on behalf of the Kawake tribe. In this dispute the Plaintiff Mr. Christine Wateoha representing the Moremae tribe appeal against the Chief hearing on 30th October, 2012 which the decision ordered both parties the Moremae tribe and Kawake tribe have equal right on the said land. In this case the Moremae tribe did not agree with the ordered and refer the dispute to Makira Local Court for to make determination on this land in dispute.

This is the responsibilities of the Plaintiff to proof his dissatisfaction on the Chiefs order, in this Makira Local Court.

In this Court the Moremae tribe claim Ngarangora land to change to Tagaru land. The Moremae tribe claim Tagaru land not Waimamura land Ngorangora land. Having heard this Tagaru land dispute, the Moremae tribe have the following two witnesses, 1. Ellen Hagatakoatana and 2. Julia Kabea. And the Defendant the Kawake tribe have three witnesses to also testified in this Court as who is the rightful ownership of Tagaru land dispute. The three witnesses are 1. Nathan Ngeriapu, 2. Henry Agosi and 3. Barnabas Ouou.

As pointed out in this Court proceeding Mr. Christian Wateoha representing the Moremae tribe still stand and claim that Tagaru land is not the Kawake tribe's ownership of this land. In this case Mr. Christian Wateoha on behalf of the Moremae tribe raises the two following points.

1. The Chairman in this chief hearing told him that if he was in the chief panel the Moremae tribe will have the primary right of Tagaru land in this dispute today but surprisingly the Moremae tribe and the Kawake tribe have the equal rights on the Tagaru land. That is why the Moremae tribe appeal to Local Court for further determination

2, That Kawake tribe posted a 30 days' notice and ask the public objection, and file a Court case against the Kawake tribe within 30 days. This is another reason why the Kawake tribe spare this case. So the Moremae tribe have to appeal against the Chiefs decision. Also the Moremae tribe concern on the notice posted by the Kawake tribe, that the Kawake tribe is intending and interested to run Ngorangora Kindy school as well as Manama primary school. Under the name of Kawake tribe, trading co-operation.

Christian Wateoha on behalf of Moremae tribe denied the Kawake tribe and fully claims that Tagaru land is the ownership of Moremae tribe and Moremae tribe have no connection with the Kawake tribe. The understanding of Moremae tribe was Kawake tribe were the ownership of Ngorangora land and not Tagaru land.

Moremae tribe will proof that Ngorangora land is a separate land from Tagaru land. This is a question the Moremae tribe have to answer. The moremae tribe still claim that Ngorangora land is the ownership of Kawake tribe and not Tagaru land as this are two separate lands.

After the argument in this Court the moremae tribe produce their genealogy started with KAITAO and Moremae raha who begut 1. Moremae, 2. Kahanua, Moremae and Karairakera begat 1. Moremae 2, 2. Oria, 3. Wateoha, 4. Kagawatagiara. Wateoha and Kamara begat 1. Bauriara, 2. Herbert Wateoha. This is the genealogy of Moremae tribe.

Having considered the evidences surrounding this dispute. The Court found that Moremae tribe got only three generation. In this case the court turn to consider the PW1&2.

Having put the claim of ownership of Ngorangora land in dispute to defendant. The Defendant plea not liable and claim that the Ngorangora land is the ownership of the Kawake tribe and told the court that there is No land call the Tagaru land. May this is newly created land.

PW1. Julia Kabea SOB stated.

She told the Court that she come to witness this morning for the Plaintiff on behalf of Moremae tribe, base on Tagaru land. To confirm the Plaintiffs evidences, she would like to raise 2 points;

1. She raises that their big coconut plantation of Magoha and kangimae, this 2 piece of land was given in custom to her grandfather Wariu. She told the court that when her father & mother plants coconut at Kangimae, her father receive a letter from Moremae tribe to stop him not to plant coconut in that piece of land. She told the court that even Sam Ngeriapu confirm to her father Clumbas Wariu to stop planting coconut, because the land belongs to Moremae tribe not the Kawake tribe.

2. She also told the court that she stay with her father, when he still alive. My father told me every story about the Western side of Manihuki where we stay at today. In this case her grandfather Leophas Wariu built one custom house to make tambu of the two plantations where as my father planted. She told the Court that Herbert and John Ngeriapu help my grandfather to build the custom house. Court understands that Sam Ngeriapu and John Ngeriapu are in the Kawake tribe.

Question raise by Defendant to PW1.

Q. Why did your father witness for Moremae tribe in the chiefs hearing but not mention the given land to him?
A. Though my father did not mention the piece land given, everyone know that Western side of Manihuki been given to my grandfather Leophas Wariu.

Question by Defendant.
Q. Do you know who give the land to your grandfather?
A. My grandfather Leophas Wariu when he comes down from bush, he settles at Western side of Manihuki.

Question by Court.
Q. How related are the Plaintiff and Defendant?
A. They are very close relative.
Q. When you say they are very close relative, what do you mean?
A. What I know is that the Plaintiff is the real nephew of the Defendant.

Having considered this evidences the Court now turn to consider the Plaintiff witness 2.

PW2. Ellen Kahagatokoatana SOB

PW2 told the Court that she comes to this court to tell the truth that Ngorangora land and Tagaru land are two separate lands. She continue to tell the court that her tribe was Kawake tribe and Tagaru land is not Kawake tribal tribe as Kawake tribe and Moremae tribe, were both live together in Ngorangora land and Kawake tribe never work garden in the Tagaru land. Kawake tribe is thought to work in Ngarangora land. There are many old gardens in the Tagaru land that was own by the Moremae tribe. She told the Court when her aunty Kamae a woman from Ngarangora married to John Ngeriapu did married down to her land. Tagaru land where Moremae tribe owned. When she and her husband get angry her aunty went back to Ngorangora land. She died and was buried at Ngorangora land. She left her only son Sam Ngeriapu to live at Ngorangora land.

She told the Court when people talking about the piece land where the Society was built, Barton Ngeriapu was the one who move Ngorangora land to Magoha. If this was happen why did the Moremae tribe dispute Barton Ngeriapu for moving the boundary?

Therefore having considered this evidences Court found that PW2 was in the Kawake tribe. This was proof that when Court raise three questions as;

Q. Did you stay at Tagaru land today?
A. No.
Q. What land did you stay?
A. I stay at Ngorangora land.
Q. How related you with the Plaintiff and the Defendant?
A. Plaintiff is my son and the Defendant was my real brother born to a same mother and father. I the elder in the family.

In this case the Court proof the PW2 is witnessing against her, and should understand that the Plaintiff and the Defendant are the same and must be the Plaintiff is also the Kawake tribe.

PW2 should be the right person who should mediate between these two uncles who dispute themself, which is against our custom.

Having considered all evidences from the Plaintiff and his two witnesses the Court is satisfied and now turn to consider the evidences from the Defendant and his 3 witnesses.
Defendant Edmond Mehare on behalf of the Kawake tribe SOB.

Before the Defendant giving his evidences to this Court he would thank the Court though the Plaintiff object the first president in this case and also several occasions made some adjournment to this Court. The Defendant thanks the Court for patient with us.

The Defendant went on to declare to this Court that Ngorangora land has been to Court for several times before this appeal from chiefs to this Court.

1. Acquisition hearing of Ngorangora land
2. Chiefs hearing with the Plaintiff with the same person who was the spokes person for the two cases.

In this case the Defendant would like to response of what the Plaintiff told the Court that appeal No. 1. At the Plaintiff told the Court of the Chairman of this chiefs hearing the next day told the Plaintiff that if he was in the chief hearing, he would given the right for Moremae tribe. That was the believe of the Plaintiff, that is why the Plaintiff appeal against the chiefs hearing and the decision delivered at that time.

The Chiefs hearing on 3rd March 1997 on behalf of Moremae tribe and Kawake tribe. It completely decides by the Chiefs who heard the dispute. Therefore the decision were order that both parties, the Plaintiff and Defendant to have equal right on the said dispute. Therefore the Plaintiff did not satisfied with the decision and now made appeal against the Chiefs decision to this Court for further determination. The Plaintiff has all the right to appeal, response by the Defendant.

The Court found that the Chairman of the Chief panel was not telling the truth the defendant clarified on the Plaintiff appeal No.2 and told the Court that Kawake tribe put up notice or thirty days and ask the Public for any objection on the notice. The notice Invites public that if any one making objection he/she should file the case for the chiefs hearing for determination in customary ownership of the disputed land.

The public notices are very common and anyone who thinks he/she owing the land appears on the public notice he/she should make objection and should charnel the dispute to the chiefs for further determination. The Defendant told the Court that the Public notice put up by the Kawake tribe is very clear and Kawake tribe sees no wrongs in the notice and welcomes of any objection against the Notice. This is not stops the Plaintiffs' constitutional right to challenge the notice in this court remains with the Plaintiff and the Defendant to proof themself in this Court. After, the Defendant submits the Kawake tribe's genealogy. He continues to outline the Kawake tribe.

Maea married to Karikoriko and begat Tahisiri No.1 Tahisiri No.1 married Kangarobo begat Kario and Tahisiora No.2. Kario begat her son call Kawake No.1, Kawake No 1 married to Kapenga they begat Kamaea, Kawake No.2, Martin Maringa, Kaurao and Henry Hagariurongo the father of the Defendant and the Plaintiffs mother.

Kamaea married to John Ngiriapu they begat Samuel Ngeriapu, Samuel Ngeriapu married to Kamakoanimae begat Barton Ngeriapu, Casper Kawake No.3 and Susan Kabarohaga. Barton Ngiriapu married to Pupusi and begat Robert Ngeriapu, Millian Ngeriapu, Nathan Ngeriapu, George Ngeriapu and Hillyton Makoanimae.

Casper Kawake No.3 have no children.

Susan Barohaga married to Henry Agosi, they begat Henry Agosi (Jr) Mary, Rolland Francis, Dedely.

Descendants of Kawake No 2.

Kawake No 2 married to Katekunago begat Andrew Ngerigapihare. Andrew Ngerigapihare married to Kaamae begat Kamaesiora, Wapenga, Wapunamane, Katowa and Susan.

Descendants of Martin Maringa.

Martin Maringa married Susan Kagana, begat Kamaea, Haritohea, Casper Maringa, adopted son and daughter are, Hudson Tonia and Mary Pnihiara.

Descendants of Henry Hagariurongo.
Henry Hagariurongo married Kamae begat Ellen Hagatakoatana the Plaintiffs witness, Batistina Katoto, Edmond Mehare the spokesman for Kawake tribe. Adopted son, Gilbert Mehare.

After the submission of genealogy the Defendant outline the boundary of the disputed land.

BOUNDARY OF NGORANGORA LAND.

Boundary of Ngoangora land started from Hauaha, Haubohia, Ngariapuna, lasimare, Wasikaru, Nagogo Taekaura, Baunataina, Wasimera, Wunu, Haunabainaki, Paregomaoro, Baunipi, Murinagau, Managau, Mauranawakumu, Mwanisinosino, Bagomarau, Wainao, Gahuto, Magoha river down to Magoha river mouth straight up to Hauaha. That is the boundary of Ngorangora land idispute confirm by the Defendant.

The Defendant also outlines their tambu sites in the disputed land. The tambu sites are, Manitoro, Rikiapu, Ngorangora sitai, Manitawa,between Manibena.

Manitawa is a place to worship sharks and monitoring the shark's movement. Ngrangora sitai is a place of gardening. Chief worship shark called Hanehanepara Uru, also worship at Manatawa, with shark call Sikimananitangi these sharks can change to (Hari) The shark call Wawaweianatawa worship at Waimamura. Shark called Gawasihutohuto also worship there.

Those are the sharks owned by the defendant's tribe. The court considers and satisfied that may be sharks owned by the Defendant and the Plaintiff. Who knows?

The Defendant raise in Court that they owned the following crops. Opposite to Warananga his tribe own swam taro. The people of Ngorangora uses these swam taros for custom feast until today.

Their nut trees are, Peapeaniroro, Kawahu Waiwaihangari, and Ngariramo. Behind Waimamura there are nut trees call Ngariapira, Ngaritaoroto, Ramo, Hunahau, Ngarinamamanigo, Ngoritopaga, Ngaritautau. These are the nut trees use by my tribe, Kawake.

Court also refers to Moremae tribe. Moremae No.1 married to Kataro begat Moremae No 2, Kahinua (daughter).

Moremae No2 married to Kararaikera begat Moremae No.3, Oria, Wateoha and Katagiara.

Moremae No 3, married to Kapirisiwa begat Francis Pinihimae, Haganitoto.

Oria married to Kawaki begat Karuhuimane, Sam Watarea.

Wateoha No.1, first wife Kamwane begat Hubert Wateoha, the Plaintiffs father second wife Kagapua, No children, third wife Kasihare No children, fourth wife Kaihu no children.

The Court no doubt this people are not the same people, but they are under the care of Kawake tribe.

Accordingly the Court proves that Hugo Bwagi was originating from Kamurisigaimahuara and Kabagapu, the Atawa clan and they are the land holding group. Kamurisigaimahuara married to Tahisiora begat Rusia, and Raumahuara, This is not the Moremae tribe.

After considering all evidences given by the Defendant, Court found that Moremae tribe should come as second person on Ngorangora land if they can prove the adoption made by Kario to Kaitao.

Both parties given all different statements and their entire statements end differently.

The Court found that the Plaintiff tribe is hiding from the Defendant tribe according to their statement.

The issue in this Court is the Defendant tribe is the ownership of Ngorangora land. He denied that there is no land call Tagaru and according to custom. All I know is that Tagaru land was just created during this dispute.

Court is satisfied with all statement given by the Defendant representing Kawake tribe and now turns to consider the DW 1,2, and 3 evidences.

DW1. Nathan Ngiriapu —SOB.

First and foremost he wants to confirm to this court that what our entire spokesman told in court are all true.

He also would confirm to this Court of our boundary mention by our spokesman is a true boundary even we did not over the boundaries.

He would also confirm in this Court, that land dispute today was Ngorangora land and not Tagaru land, as claim by the plaintiff on behalf of Moremae tribe. So Ngorangora land is the ownership of the Kawake tribe.

To prove this evidences and what I believe that Kawake tribe was own this land Ngorangora in dispute today.

1. All people form bush who came from Boriarsii, Makoanimae, Hunagaihau, Torata villages. Before they come down to settle at Manihuki, Bagomara, they get permission from Kawake tribe before they settle.

2. In 1988 the IFI Logging Company operate further in land from Waimamura land, to the Southern boundary of Ngorangora. My father late Barton Ngeriapu put Hudson Muritagi to sign as his trustee. He told the Court that Trustees can be/anyone. My father nominates Hudson Muritagi to sign as trustee to administer all matter on behalf of my late father Barton Ngeriapu to disbursement of the royalties for Kawake tribes.

3. Another prove evidence where Kawake tribe own this disputed land, is the sale of Goromanu land to DOH. My late father arranges the sale through the Kawake tribes. Also the sale of Hunanago piece land to Fred Fanua from Santa Catalina was arrange by my father on behalf of the Kawake tribe. And the same arrangement was made for Walter Quou of Manibena village for the sale of one small plot land in the dispute land.

4. Another prove I still recall, is the father of the Plaintiff Herbert Wateoha come and told my late father Barton Ngeriapu, said that the Kwake tribe was to firm and have confident to depend on Kawake tribe right of Ngorangora land.

5. Another prove I can recall is that old man Francis Pinihimae sent his adopted son late Joh Haripurua to convey all stories to my late father Barton Ngeriapu said that old man Francis Pinihimae related to Kawak tribe through adoption, therefore he follow Kawake tribe. If the Moremae tribe claim of owning Ngorangora land how Tarau land, why did Moremae tribe appeal against my father of signing Ngorangori land for logging as first mention. This statement was not dispute by the Plaintiff.

DW2: Henry Agosi SOB.
DW2, told the Court that he have two points to raise in this Court.

The first point was talking about how Manama school started. He told the Court that though the Manihuki Community accept the school to be built at Manama School but not specific who are the land owners, who allow the land to built Manama school. The Court did not take note on this statement as this is outside from this dispute. The Court found that we are not talking about building school, we in land dispute so we should stick on the evidence concerning this land dispute.

Second point the DW2 is talking about how he started to settle at Manihuki village. Before he settle at Manihuki according to custom he ask permission from Sam Ngeriapu for a small piece of land to plant coconuts for his children to place call Manigahiga. Because that land is always muddy during rainy season. He told me to look for space from Ngorngora land. He told me to brush area where no one disputes me. He told the Court that though Sam Ngeriapu told me to brush new area, but I insisted that I must work in the swamp area. Therefore I know and believe that Kawake tribe own the disputed land today.

DW3. Barnabas Ouou SOB.

As I am one of the Defendant witness, I have here before this Court to confirm the plot of land where my family live today was a plot where my father Walter Ouou ask and paid from Barton Ngeriapu from Kawake tribe.

He told the Court that when his father though to pay the plot of land, he approach Barton Ngeriapu of Kawake tribe as land owner, and make negotiation of buying the land. So I totally believe that Kawake tribe own the land in dispute today.

The defendant witness should go on in giving evidences, as the Court taken into account his evidences as if you continue we would 1ikely to talk about other plot of land own by other people.

Q. Question raise by the Plaintiff to the DW3 when Barton Ngeriapu sold the land to you.
Did the land is a Customary or Registered land.
A. We only know that Kawake tribe own the land.
Q. When Barton Ngeriapu sold the land to you? Did he put up the notice of the selling to the public?
A. He did not put up the public notice, but all we know is that Kawake tribe own the land in dispute today.

Having heard all evidences given in court by the Plaintiff and the Defendant with all their witnesses. The Court is satisfied and now turns to the Court survey.

SURVEY

Court resume for survey on 17th September 2013 at 11.05 am with both parties attended the survey. Before the Court commence of survey the Plaintiff told the Court that his boundary starts from Waiatana. In the sea the Moremae tribe use to worship sharks there. The Defendant agree and told the Court that he claim the whole land including Waiatan stream (Waimamura). The Defendant denied that there is no Tagaru land as claim by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff also told the Court that if so then there is no Ngorangora land as claim by the Defendant. The Plaintiff urge in Court that Ngorangora is just a point and Defendant confirms to Court that Tagaru is a piece of land within Ngorangora land, and Kawake tribe used to worship shark there.The Plaintiff also claims that Hagasurimane use to worship sharks there because he is Moremae tribe.

The Defendant told the Court that the Kawake tribe own the eight (8) sharks and were worship there. The Plaintiff told the Court Moremae tribe own Tagaru land, and we only know that we worship one shark. In our custom no one worship more than one shark.
As already told the Court their boundary was from Tagaru land follow up Waiatana stream and Moremae tribe own old nut trees and old gardens.

The Defendant told the Court the nut is called the Manuasi stands at Ngorangora land. But the nuts already fell down. He told the Court during survey that there is no any Moremae tribe pick up these nuts. He continues that the area Commins was working under the authority of Kawake tribe. He told the Court that the nut tree which the Plaintiff claim was just sixth (60) years old.

The Plaintiff in his argument confirms to Court that old nut trees and old gardens are side of Moremae tribe. Though these nut trees have already there and if the Defendants claim these nuts, then he should tell to Court during his statement in Court. I as the Plaintiff denied what the Defendant claim. The Plaintiff told the Court even though the Moremae tribe did not pick up these nuts but it is belongs to Moremae tribe. He also confirms that Rahurahu is at Moremae tribe which his witness mentions in his statement. The Plaintiff told the Court that the Defendant stated in his statement that his father was still a small boy. So how can he know about these things?

Defendant told the Court he just heard about the Plaintiff claim Rahurahu. But it is the owned by the Kawake tribe. The Plaintiff and Defendant are all confirm the Gaeragi area. The Plaintiff told the Court that old nuts are on Babagahiga area. Also one nut tree named Ramo including sago palms which are planted on the same area. Umuhau is also located just beside Babagahiga.

Though the Plaintiff claims he is belongs to Kawake tribe. Kawake tribe already there and used to work there. That is why I say there are so many old nuts in the Tagaru land. This Ramo nut tree is just recently vunuhiga our properties are planted there. He also claims that some properties were planted in vuguhau. The Plaintiff believes there are no properties planted there because the Defendant should mention it during his submission statement during Court.

The Plaintiff also told the Court that the statement given by Defendant witness No.2 did not have enough prove, because he did not know who allow the Manama Primary School to establish. The DW2 gave no enough prove to confirm that Manama Primary school was allowed by the Kawake tribe. According to the Moremae tribe's knowledge that this Area in dispute was given to Panimahai. The Moremae tribe does not believe the DW2 because he did not have enough prove.

The Defendant told the Court that the matter of prove is the court responsibility. Every prove is in the statement already give by the Plaintiff and the Defendant and not our part to prove to us. Panirnahai only own the property, but not the land. The Kawake tribe allow Panimahai to settle at Nakume village. And also those people settle at Manihuki village next to Manama Primary school are not the land owners. Their settlement at Manihuki was given to them by the Kawake tribe not the Moremae tribe.

The Moremae tribe did not believe these statement but told the Court that though Moremae tribe live or settle far away, but still they are the land owners. The Plaintiff told the Court that Manihuki was first settle in by Kaitao and Moremae.

Thus the Court question that who are these people. The Moremae tribe is to come out clear to identify these people to this Court.

The Plaintiff did not believe Kawake No.1 authorise people to settle at Manihuki. Kawake No.1 died was before 1920, while people come down and ask Kawake tribe to settle in Manihuki after Kawake No.1 already dead.

The Defendant concluded that this area given to Wariu is a false story. To confirm this area mention by the Moremae tribe was sold to Fred Fanua by Kawake tribe. This sale was initiated and signed by Barton Ngeriapu and witness by Herbet Wateoha. The land was purchased to Kawake tribe.

The Plaintiff told the Court that during Chiefs hearing the Defendant at that time was Plaintiff. If you look to their statement they did not even mention this piece of land where sold to Fred Faua. In this Court the Moremae tribe did not want to tell lie. The truth is that Barton Ngeriapu asked Moremae tribe to buy this piece of land where Fred Fanua buys. But Moremae tribe just told Barton Ngeriapu to work in the land, instead of working in the land, Barton Ngeriapu and Hangusu recover the land in custom. Actually Moremae tribe intended to dispute it when Barton Ngeriapu sold the land, but our oldman stops us because this piece of land was been alone according to our custom of ownership. This was confirm by our three oldman Henry Hagariurongo, Martin Maringa and Kawake No.2. Henry Hagariurongo is the father of my mother and the Defendant.

The Defendant confirm in this Court was true. The Plaintiffs mother and the Defendant are true brothers and sisters born to Henry Hagariurongo, so the Plaintiff should not dispute me because we are belongs to Kawake tribe. After surveying, the Plaintiff told the Court that people I dispute them were my mother s people. But because both of us represent two different tribes, that is why I spokesman for my father's tribe. In my father genealogy is different from my mother genealogy concerning the ownership of the land. He urge the Court to consider that I stand in this Court to represent my father's tribe. Which I already mention in my statement that Kiokio is from Amea clan.

Having considered all evidences submitted in Court by the Plaintiff and his witness and Defendant and his witnesses. Court found that though the Plaintiff and the Defendant represent different tribes arguing the ownership of the land in dispute but they are one family. How can one family brother, sisters and nephew denied themselves in this Court. This is wrong in custom. It is easy to denied yourself with the good relationship entertain before, but very hard to restore the good relationship between brother and sisters. It is a sorry thing the Court found in this case.

Having considered this, Court found that the Plaintiff and the Defendant are real uncles even PW2 is the real elder sister of the Defendant, and it is wrong in custom go separate them. Accordingly, the Court makes its ruling as follows.

DECISION

1. The Defendant and the Plaintiff are one family and they are from the Kawake tribe. That the Plaintiffs right is remove to owner under the Kawake Tribe

3. That the Moremae tribe is to seek permission from the Kawake tribe if any of the Moremae tribe still existed.

4. That the Kawake tribe has the final say to the Moremae tribe if wants to make new Development on the disputed land.

5. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are to live in harmony with each other.

Any party wish to appeal against the Decision of this Court may lodge his appeal within 3 Months from today's date.

Appeal laps 10/09/2014.

Dated this 10th day of June 2014.

President: 	Francis Woritarisi	
Members: 	Michael Wao	
''	Fred Riitau	
Clerk: 	Isaiah taro