Clanton v Marshall Islands Chief Electoral Officer (3) [1989] MHSC 25; 1 MILR (Rev) 167 (2 August 1989)

1 MILR (Rev.) 167

IN THE SUPREME COURT
REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS

S.CT. CIVIL NO. 89-02
(High Ct. Civil Nos. 1988-084 and 1988-082, consolidated)

TOJIO CLANTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant

-v-

MARSHALL ISLANDS CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER SHIRO RIKLON,
Defendants-Respondents,

and

NIDEL LORAK and JACK HELKENA,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

-v-

MARSHALL ISLANDS CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER SHIRO RIKLON, et al.,
Defendants-Respondents.

APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT

AUGUST 2, 1989

ASHFORD, C.J.
KING, A.J. pro tem,¹ and KOBAYASHI, A.J. pro tem²

SUMMARY:

The Supreme Court affirmed a judgment of the High Court dismissing two suits asking that 1987 elections to fill Arno and Ujae seats in the Nitijela be set aside and new elections ordered because those suits were between the same parties, asserted same rights based on same facts and sought same relief as in actions earlier filed and still pending.

DIGEST:

1. ABATEMENT OF ACTIONS – Nature and Grounds: A second suit will be abated by a first only if there are the same parties, the same rights asserted, and the same relief prayed for, which must be founded on the same facts or essential basis.

2. ABATEMENT OF ACTIONS – Same: "Same" as used in stating and applying principles of abatement does not mean "identical" causes of action and relief sought. It means the "essential basis" must be the same.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY ASHFORD, C.J.

These are two more in the series of actions by candidates for Ujae and Arno seats in the Nitijela who failed to be elected in 1987. Prior to the filing of the complaints in these actions, the following had occurred:

In December 1987, these candidates and others filed appeals in the High Court from the Chief Electoral Officer's denial of their petitions for recounts. While those petitions were pending, these candidates and others petitioned the High Court for a writ of mandamus requiring the Chief Electoral Officer to refer questions of voter qualifications to the High Court. In February 1988, the High Court upheld the Chief Electoral Officer's denial of the petitions for recount and ruled against petitioners on the voters' qualifications questions. In mid-March 1988, the Appellants and petitioners in those actions filed notices of appeal to this court.³