Clarence v Laukon [2000] MHTRC 3; Civil Action 1999-302 (8 August 2000)

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback Traditional Rights Court of the Marshall Islands

The Traditional Rights Court held the trial in High Court Civil Action No. 1999-302 on July 5^th to 6^th, in the Uliga Courthouse, Majuro, Marshall Islands. Members of the Panel were Associate Judge Billiet Edmond, Temporary Associate Judge Tonko Isiah, and Associate Judge Berson Joseph.

This matter came before the Traditional Rights Court to decide, pursuant to the custom, the dispute between these parties as to who is the rightful Iroijedrik title holder. Court recognizes that custom is very important and has an important role in resolving the dispute herein.

A. BULOK = Only an Iroijlablab can cause a Bulok if there is good cause. Our custom is very good and very unique in this region. As we live and exist by our custom, there are certain "MO or TABOOS" we must know about to avoid the consequences or protect ourselves from "Le-kij." One of them is stepping on an iroij's sleeping mats. Bulok can also occur from less serious offenses done repeatedly against an iroij. If a serious offense is blamed on the bwij, then all the members of the bwij will inherit the bulok. In some instances, however, a bulok will only effect the wrongdoer.

B. JIDRAK IN BWIJ = The primary function of a genealogy is to show the right and proper horizontal line of succession for the iroijedrik, alab and dri-jerbal rights. This concept broadens and confirms the knowledge that is the basis of the rights and interests we have on our lands that were originally established and given to us by our first grandfathers. Today there are some people who say no, "The right remains with the senior bwij until they all die, and only then can it go to the younger bwijs."

C. CONSTITUTION = It is the supreme law of the Marshall Islands, and we should take counsel from it. It states that there are three landrights, Iroij, Alab, and Dri-jerbal. They go together, any one can't disregard the others to pursue his own interest. If we all live according to the JEMAN-E, we will never have any disputes between the Iroij and the Alab, and between the alab and the Dri-jerbal. An Iroij cannot just "discard" people from the land without any major reason. Iroijs have their people, and they love their people!

1. The Question presented: DOES MUNA CLARENCE HOLD THE IROIJEDRIK RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST ON TEREEN WETO IN DELAP, OR WAS SHE DIVESTED OF THIS RIGHT BY IROIJLABLAB AMATA KABUA?

(1) Yes, it is right and proper for MUNA CLARENCE to hold the right, title, and interest of Iroijedrik on Tereen Weto in Delap.

(2) No, this Court has not a shred of evidence that Iroij Amata Kabua had done so.

(b) Brief Statement of Reasoning on which Opinion in Answer to the Question is based:

Both genealogies are really not different from one another and very self explanatory. All these four bwijs, including the plaintiff, originated from one woman named LIMANPINE. Luna John is from the senior bwij, bwij of NILEB. But MUNA CLARENCE is from the third bwij, bwij of LUWARELIK. This shows that both Luna John and Muna Clarence are in the same generation. They are sisters. Meaning that LIOMELON, the person recognized by the iroijlablab today, Leroij Atama Zedkaia, as evidenced by Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 5, first page, is the daughter of Luna John, and in the same generation as Muna Clarence's children.

In reality Muna Clarence is the younger sister of Michael Jonathan and not his daughter as shown in the genealogy charts. This Court recognizes this to come from Luna John's advisors as it is clearly shown. The members of this family all know and understand that Muna Clarence is not Michael Jonathan's daughter, but his SISTER.

(3) At the end of her testimony, Liomelon had testified she does recognize Muna Clarence as her mother and that she has all the rights. This Court is in total agreement with Liomelon's bowing down to her mother. Liomelon knows very well that if her mother (Muna) dies, then she will succeed her. This Court believes from here on, these two ladies will join hands and respect each other OUT OF LOVE.

The term Bulok came up during the hearing of this case. In her testimony, Leroij Atama Zedkaia repeatedly testified that a bulok had occurred against the children of LUWARELIK as a result of the case LOMODRO brought against Iroijlablab Lainlen. The history of Majuro tells us that the predecessor iroijs, Isiah, Leroij Tarjikit, Joba Kabua, Amata Kabua, never talked about this BULOK. We recognize this fact because we see that the children and grandchildren of Luwarelik did and are still inheriting the Iroijedrik right to the present time. And why now? We should remember that BULOK means, COMPLETELY CUT OFF!!

1. Toke Sawej
2. Toej A. Jamodre
3. Paul Edwin

Laura, Majuro, Marshall Islands
Delap, Majuro, Marshall Islands
Delap, Majuro, Marshall Islands

4. Line Myazoe
5. Elizabeth Myzoe
6. Yukio (Lawrence) Kumtak
7. Leroij Atama Zedkaia

Delap, Majuro, Marshall Islands
Delap, Majuro, Marshall Islands
Batkan, Majuro, Marshall Islands
Delap, Majuro, Marshall Islands

(a) Muna Clarence is the Iroijedrik for Tereen Weto in Delap. Iroijlablab Amata Kabua didn't take this right from her. This Court recognizes Leroij Atama's action as an attempt to disregard what was arranged by the iroijs before her, for if not, then she's violating the custom.

(b) We inherit bwij rights "from bwij to bwij horizontally," and not vertically. Please see High Court Civil Action No. 1997-124, Kotta Lokar vs. Lanbo Kemoot.

(c) There is no BULOK: If there had been any, then LIORMEJAB and her children would not have inherited the Iroijedrik right today.

(d) JEMAN-AE: This case will not destroy the rights inherited and the benefits attached thereto under the CONSTITUTION. Let us respect it and be glad for it!!

Based on the these facts, it is the unanimous opinion of the Panel that yes MUNA CLARENCE is the most proper person today to hold the right, title, and interest of Iroijedrik on Tereen Weto.

TONKO ISAIHA
Temporary Associate Judge, TRC
Republic of the Marshall Islands

Traditional Rights Court of the Marshall Islands

Clarence v Laukon [2000] MHTRC 3; Civil Action 1999-302 (8 August 2000)