Zaion et al v Peter and Nenam [1991] MHSC 6; 1 MILR (Rev) 228 (24 January 1991)

1 MILR (Rev.) 228

IN THE SUPREME COURT
REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS

S.Ct. CIVIL NO. 89-06
(High Ct. Civil No. 1983-041)

KOJJAN ZAION, JEKDRON MACK, BETONG KANEL, and LOKORU ISHIGURO,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

JILAS ZAION,
Added Plaintiff-Appellee,

-v-

NOMAI S. PETER,
Defendant-Appellant,

and

TEBRO NERI NENAM,
Intervenor-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT

JANUARY 24, 1991

BIRD, TEMPORARY C.J.¹
RUTLEDGE, A.J., and KOBAYASHI, A.J.² (sitting by designation)

SUMMARY:

This suit involved a dispute over entitlement to certain traditional Marshallese land rights in four wetos located on Uliga Island, Majuro Atoll. At issue were the senior dri jerbal rights in the four wetos, as well as the alap rights in one of the four. The matter was tried at a joint trial before the High Court and the Traditional Rights Court. The Traditional Rights Court rendered its opinion first and concluded that the individual plaintiffs and the intervenor were entitled to the various traditional land rights in dispute. The High Court subsequently rendered its judgment wherein it agreed that the individual plaintiffs and the intervenor were the proper holders of the disputed traditional land rights. The Supreme Court affirmed.

DIGEST:

1. CUSTOM – Factual Inquiry: Every inquiry into custom involves two factual determinations: first, is there a custom with respect to the subject matter of the inquiry; and, if so, second, what is it?

2. APPEAL AND ERROR – Review – Discretionary Matters – Findings of Fact: Findings of fact are reviewed to determine if they are clearly erroneous.

3. APPEAL AND ERROR – Review – Discretionary Matters – Findings of Fact – Clearly Erroneous: A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when review of the entire record produces a definite and firm conviction that the court below made a mistake.

4. RES JUDICATA – Effect: The doctrine of res judicata bars a second action between the same parties on the same subject matter directly involved in the prior action.

5. COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL – Distinguished from Res Judicata: The doctrine of collateral estoppel is different from the doctrine of res judicata in that, instead of preventing a second assertion of the same claim or cause of action, the doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents a second litigation of issues between the same parties or their privies even in connection with a different claim or cause of action.

6. COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL – Timeliness