Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Reports of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

  Download original PDF

Makroro v Kokke [1971] TTLawRp 39; 5 TTR 465 (14 September 1971)

5 TTR 465

CLANCY MAKRORO, Plaintiff

v.

JABLUR KOKKE, Defendant

Civil Action No. 406

Trial Division of the High Court

Marshall Islands District

September 14, 1971

Action to determine dri jerbal rights to Komlal Wato, Majuro Atoll. The Trial Division of the High Court, D. Kelly Turner, Associate Justice, held that an alab acting without the approval of the iroij lablab cannot terminate a dri jerbal interest in land and thus defendant's attempted action to cut off dri jerbal rights under those circumstances was invalid.

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

A holder of land interests may not transfer those interests without first obtaining consent of the lineage and approval of the iroij lablab or the person or group exercising iroij lablab authority.

2. Marshalls Land Law-Generally

Where neither the defendant's bwij nor the droulul were informed of nor gave their approval to the attempted sale to another, such sale was invalid.

3. Marshalls Land Law-"Kitre"

Kitre is a gift by a husband to his wife.

4. Marshalls Land Law-"Dri Jerbal"-Revocation of Rights

An alab, acting without approval of the iroij lablab, or in the case of "Jebrik's side", the persons or group exercising such authority, cannot terminate a dri jerbal interest in land.

TURNER, Associate Justice

This action involves dri jerbal rights to Komlal Wato, Rairok Island, Majuro Atoll. Rights in this land are of no present significance, except as they determine entitlement to condemnation payments by the Trust Territory. The land has been condemned for a 25-year lease period for use as airport and water catchment system. Successor interest holders in all probability will be entitled to further payments from the then government on expiration of the present lease agreement. Presence of an assessor was waived by the parties for the trial.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Trust Territory Land Title Office, in an attempt to establish a record of holders of land interests on Majuro Atoll held hearings in 1958 and published its determinations in 1959, showing in regard to Komlal Wato, the land in question, that the defendant, Jablur, also spelled Lijablur, held both alab and dri jerbal interests.

2. The hearings held by the land office were informal and all the claimants to land interests, including the plaintiff, did not participate.

3. Regardless of the land office listing of interests, defendant acknowledged plaintiff to be dri jerbal of the land in question, in litigation settling alab and dri jerbal rights for the land, decided by this court in 1964, Jemba Beklur v. Lijablur, 2 T.T.R. 556.

4. Defendant is the alab of Komlal Wato and Henry Muller is the iroij erik. Because the land was formerly controlled by Iroij lablab Jebrik Lukutwerak and there presently is no iroij lablab for this land or other land on "Jebrik's side" of Majuro Atoll, iroij lablab authority is exercised by the droulul, composed of iroij eriks and other land interest holders of former lands of Iroij lablab Jebrik.

5. Plaintiff is a blood relation of the defendant. They are brother and sister under the custom.

6. The land in question was given by Lcbonju as kitre to his wife, Lijironean, with the understanding it should pass on her death to the defendant Lijablur.

7. After the 1918 or 1919 typhoon, Lebonju asked his bwij, of which Neiwan was the senior member, to return to the land to replant it. Neiwan declined and went to Laura to live. Lebonju appointed Makroro, plaintiff's father, as dri jerbal.

8. Makroro replanted after the typhoon and continued as dri jerbal until his death when he was succeeded by his son, the plaintiff Clancy.

9. Defendant did not exercise any rights on the land until she returned to Majuro from Arno in 1951. Although Jablur testified she did not recognize Makroro as dri jerbal, it is a fact he worked the land with Clancy after 1951 until his death and Clancy continued without objection from Jablur until the present dispute arose.

10. When the Trust Territory made condemnation payments for the land in question and adjacent lands for an airport and water catchment system now under construction, the plaintiff, defendant and the iroij erik agreed that the payment should be divided one-sixth for the iroij erik, one-sixth for the alab, one-sixth for the "Jebrik's side" hospital fund, and the remainder for the dri jerbal.

11. At that time it was disclosed to plaintiff that one acre of Komlal Wato had purportedly been sold by Mike Maddison, the predecessor iroij erik of Henry Muller, and by the defendant to James Milne for one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) .

12. Plaintiff had not been consulted and had not consented to the sale. Henry Muller, the present iroij erik, also did not consent to the sale and sought to recover the iroij erik interest from Milne in Henry Muller v. James Milne, 5 T.T.R. 471.

13. Because of the dispute between plaintiff and defendant as to dri jerbal interests in Komlal Wato, the Trust Territory payment for that interest in the amount of eleven thousand one hundred eighty-eight dollars ($11,188.00) is being held by the District Finance Office pending settlement of this case.

OPINION

Defendant raised issues of both Marshallese land tenure and decided law in an attempt to support her claim to dri jerbal interest in Komlal Wato. Her claims, however, were contrary both to applicable Marshallese custom and the prior decision of this court.

It is significant that defendant's counsel purportedly purchased one acre of the land in question and that payment of a relatively large sum of money hinges upon the determination of dri jerbal interests.

[1] It is not difficult to clear up any question as to the purported buyer's interest before proceeding to settlement of the dispute between plaintiff and defendant. The custom is clear and has been emphasized in many decisions of this court that a holder of land interests may not transfer those interests without first obtaining consent of the lineage and approval of the iroij lablab or the person or group exercising iroij lablab authority.

An attempt to divide land with respect to alab and dri jerbal interests was held invalid because it was not approved by the iroij elap in James R. v. Albert Z., 2 T.T.R. 135. For the same rule, see: Lazarus v. Likjer, 1 T.T.R. 129. Limine v. Lainej, 1 T. T. R. 231.

[2] Since neither the defendant's bwij nor the droulul were informed of nor gave their approval to the attempted sale to Milne, we have no hesitancy in holding it invalid. Milne may have claim against Jablur for the money he paid her but that is not a matter for decision in this case.

As to the dispute between plaintiff and defendant concerning dri jerbal rights, the defendant asserts a number of theories, not the least of which is that she received both alab and dri jerbal right from her father who was the iroij erik, and therefore the land was kitre. She concludes that a holder of kitre may do with the land as she sees fit.

The statement as to the custom is approximately correct except that in this case the facts do not fit the custom relied upon. It was defendant's mother by adoption who received the alab and dri jerbal interests as kitre.

[3] Kitre is a gift by a husband to his wife. Defendant was the daughter, not the wife of Lebonju, the iroij erik. Lijironean, the wife of Lebonju, held the rights as kitre and the husband and wife agreed that Jablur should succeed to these interests. Jemba Beklur v. Lijablur, supra.

The defendant, during the litigation with Jemba, very clearly recognized plaintiff as dri jerbal. Indeed, she did not deny he held the rights when she testified in the present case.

In the Jemba case, the court held "Lijablur's blood relatives" held dri jerbal rights. Plaintiff is a blood relative and with his father has exercised the rights since Lijironean died and defendant succeeded to her interests. That decision is binding upon defendant.

However, defendant bases her present claim upon the reason that she "cut off" plaintiff from the land because "he did not render loyal services" to her. The grounds for terminating an interest is appropriate but the proof was utterly lacking that plaintiff withheld the alab's share of the copra cut and sold from Komlal.

It appears defendant's justification for attempting to terminate plaintiff's interests was not that he withheld her share of copra sales but that he did not give her enough money. Whether this justifies termination of an interest, and we do not agree that it does, the attempted action was invalid under the custom anyway.

[4] It has been held many times that an alab, acting without approval of the iroij lablab, or in the case of "Jebrik's side", the persons or group exercising such authority, cannot terminate a dri jerbal interest in land. Approval of higher authority is mandatory. This court recently held in Jabwe v. Henos, 5 T.T.R. 458, that:-

"The law is well settled both by traditional land custom and by decisions of this court determining questions of Marshallese land tenure that an alab does not have authority to cut off interests in land by himself. Many cases hold neither the alab, nor the iroij erik for that matter, have the right to cut off dri jerbal interests in land without the consent or acquiescence of the iroij lablab." (Citing.)

Defendant's attempted action against plaintiff is contrary to the custom and the decisions of this court. Plaintiffs vested rights must be affirmed and in lieu of his right to work the land, he is entitled to the government's payment for the leasehold interest.

It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed:-

1. That plaintiff Clancy Makroro, and those claiming through him, hold the dri jerbal interest in Komlal Wato, Rairok Island, Majuro Atoll.

2. The District Finance Officer is directed to pay to Clancy Makroro in full satisfaction of plaintiffs claim against the Trust Territory Government the sum of eleven thousand one hundred eighty-eight dollars ($11,188.00) now held by the Finance Office.

3. Defendant Jablur holds the alab interest for the land in question but does not hold dri jerbal rights in the land.

4. The purported transfer of dri jerbal rights to one acre of Komlal Wato by the defendant Jablur to James Milne is invalid, without force and effect, vests no interest in Milne, and deprives Clancy Makroro of no interest.

5. No costs are assessed.