PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Supreme Court of the Marshall Islands

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of the Marshall Islands >> 1998 >> [1998] MHSC 4

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Hermios v Ministry of Internal Affairs [1998] MHSC 4; 2 MILR 127 (7 September 1998)

2 MILR 127


IN THE SUPREME COURT
REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS


S.Ct. CIVIL NO. 97-04

(High Ct. Civil No. 1994-011)


IROIJ MURJEL HERMIOS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,


-v-


BRENSON S. WASE, MINISTER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS, AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS,
Defendants,


and


LITOKWA TOMEING,
Intervenor-Appellee,


-v-


HEMMY LANGMOS,
Real Party in Interest-Appellant.


APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT


SEPTEMBER 7, 1998


FIELDS, C.J.
TAYLOR, A.J. pro tem,1 and NGIRAKLSONG, A.J. pro term2


SUMMARY:


Appellant appealed the decision by the High Court and the Traditional Rights Court sitting together that Appellee was the alap and senior dri jerbal of the subject weto. Appellant claimed that the trial court did not consider certain evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed.


OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ALLEN P. FIELDS


In 1994, Iroijlaplap Murjel Hermios, Plaintiff, brought an action seeking to declare the lease of Telnan and Monaktal Wetos, Wotje Atoll, to be valid and that he was entitled to receive the iroij share of payment. Litokwa Tomeing, intervened claiming the iroijedrik, alap and dri jerbal rights. Hemmy Langmos filed an answer to the Intervenor claiming an equal share with the Intervenor and specifically claiming that he held the right to the alap and dri jerbal shares. In a hearing before the High Court in 1994, the lease was declared valid and the parties stipulated that Litokwa Tomeing, the Intervenor, held the iroijedrik title to the weto in question. No evidence was introduced as to the alap and dri jerbal shares and the matter was certified to the Traditional Rights Court for further Hearing. In 1997, the Traditional Rights Court and the High Court determined that, in the best interests of justice and economy, the hearing would be held jointly before the two courts. This was pursuant to Rule 13 of the Rules for Traditional Rights Court.



PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/mh/cases/MHSC/1998/4.html