Mwedriktok v Langijota and Abija [1989] MHSC 26; 1 MILR (Rev) 172 (15 August 1989)

1 MILR (Rev.) 172

IN THE SUPREME COURT
REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS

S.Ct. CIVIL NO. 88-01

(High Ct. Civil No. 1987-012)

ADDE MWEDRIKTOK,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

-v-

LIEJBAD LANGIJOTA, and INOKKO ABIJA,
Defendants-Appellants.

APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT

AUGUST 15, 1989

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

SUMMARY:

In a dispute over entitlement to "in lieu of copra" and "land use" payments the Supreme Court held that the High Court's application of the principle of res judicata and division of payments in one-third shares among the iroijlaplap, alap and dri jerbal were correct.

DIGEST:

1. APPEAL AND ERROR – Review – Discretionary Matters – Findings of Fact: Findings of fact by the High Court are not to be set aside by the Supreme Court unless found to be clearly erroneous.

2. LAND RIGHTS – Distribution of Land Use Payments: Allocating equal thirds of payments for land use and in lieu of copra to the iroijlaplap, alap and dri jerbal is consistent with Marshallese practice.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY KING, A.J.

Defendants-Appellants Liejbad Langijota ("Langijota") and Inokko Abija ("Abija") appeal from a High Court decision involving the allocation of payments originating from the United States to the displaced residents of Eru island, Kwajalein Atoll.

Appellants claim three points of error: (1) The High Court's ruling is contrary to Marshallese custom, tradition, and practice, (2) The High Court erred in giving more rights to Plaintiff-Appellee Adde Mwedriktok ("Mwedriktok") than Mwedriktok had and in finding that Mwedriktok represents seven families, (3) The High Court erred in concluding that the "in lieu of copra" payments are the same as the Kwajalein Atoll Land Use Agreement ("KALUA") "land use" payments.

In its findings of fact, the High Court found that the parties in the case were the same as or in privity with the parties in an earlier case, Lijbalang Binni and Tojiro Lomae v. Adde Mwedriktok, Samuel Lemto, Maina Jajo, Maka P. and Daina Mae, Civil No. 318 (1971) ("Binni"). The High Court also found that the issues raised in the case were the same, with two exceptions not relevant here, as those in Binni. Based upon these findings, the High Court held that the principles of res judicata applied so that the Court was bound by the holding in Binni.

The issue in Binni was whether Lijbalang Binni, Langijota's predecessor, or Mwedriktok was the rightful alap of Eru Island. Binni