Anjetob v Taklob [1968] TTLawRp 50; 4 TTR 120 (31 August 1968)

4 TTR 120

TRIAL DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT

MARSHALL ISLANDS DISTRICT

Civil Action No. 207

ANJETOB and DRIEO

Plaintiffs

v.

TAKLOB, NEMILLE, and Others

Defendants

August 31, 1968

Action to upset determination of land ownership by an iroij elap concerning lands under control. The Trial Division of the High Court, E. P. Furber, Temporary Judge, held that where so many, years had passed since the original determination had made there was a presumption that the determination proper.

1. Marshalls Land Law-"Iroij Elap"-Powers

Determinations by an iroij elap, with regards to his lands are entitled to great weight and it is to be supposed that they are reasonable unless it is clear they are not.

2. Marshalls Land Law-"Iroij Elap"-Powers

Where so many years had passed since an iroij's decision as to succession to certain land the presumption that his determination was reasonable and proper was reinforced by a presumption analogous to the "presumption of grant" or "doctrine of lost grant".

FURBER, Temporary Judge

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. By an arrangement approved by the then ruling iroij elap of the lands in question and recognized by the Japanese authorities well before the end of the Japanese administration, the descendants of Kanaki were excluded from succession to the positions of alab and senior dri jerbal of these lands.

2. The plaintiffs have failed to prove their claim that Leroij Telinej ever re-established any rights of ownership in the lands in question in the descendants of Kanaki.

OPINION

[1] This is an action in the plaintiffs seek to have the court upset the clearly expressed determination of the acknowledged iroij elap of lands under the Marshallese system of land ownership as to the holding of subordinate in lands under him. The court has repeatedly held that determinations by an iroij elap (which is an equivalent term to that of iroij lablab) with regard to his lands are entitled to great weight it is to be supposed that they are reasonable unless it is clear they are not. Limine v. Lainej, 1 T.T.R. 107, 231, 595. Lalik v; Lazarus S., 1 T.T.R. 143. Lalik v. Elsen, 1 T.T.R. 134.

In this instance the exact reasons for Iroij