Republic of the Marshall Islands Judiciary

The following are all the opinions of the Traditional Rights Court that have been located. New opinions will be made available as they are issued. See the Disclaimer page.

2026

• Alik v Abner (Opinion & Answer of the Traditional Rights Court [on remand from the Supreme Court and second referral from High Court]), CA 2017-00226 (08/20/26) [Marshallese][English]. The High Court resubmitted two more questions for the TRC to clarify (1) why the TRC referred to the bwij of Lijeleej rather than the bwij of Liriwa, and (2) what evidence in the record supports the TRC’s reference to the bwij of Lijileej. In its answer, the TRC clarified that the bwij of Lijileej continues the bwij of Liriwa as it remains extant. Liriwa’s bwij continued through Libonar, then to Kallep and ultimately to Lijileej.
• Alik v Abner (Opinion & Answer of the Traditional Rights Court [on remand from the Supreme Court and referral from High Court]), CA 2017-00226 (07/21/26) [Marshallese][English]. The High Court resubmitted two questions for the TRC to clarify (1) whether in their opinion, the Ralik Title Succession Act explains how Senior Dri Jerbal rights may be inherited; and (2) if yes, do Rule 905(2) and 905(3) of the Ralik Title Succession Act affect the arrangements of jolet, inheritance of a Senior Dri Jerbal rights in this case? The TRC held that Rule 905(2) of the Ralik Succession Act does not specify what title the section applies to – whether Alap or Senior Dri Jerbal. It also said that Subsection 905(2) provides that the first female offspring of a male member constitutes a new lineage, even if she is a “toor in botoktok” from the father. In this regard, the TRC recognized Cansee as a toor in botoktok from Nebun who is from the bwij, but Abner’s botoktok line started two generations earlier and still extant.
• Rusin v. Kabua, Kabua-Jeik, and Kabua (Opinion & Answer of the Traditional Rights Court [to Further Questions]), CA 2023-00953 (07/02/26) [Marshallese][English]. This is a resubmission of Question 2 for further clarification following the TRC’s answers to the prior supplemental questions. The resubmission of Question 2 asks the TRC to confirm whether the basis for its initial answer was based on the law or Marshallese custom. The TRC confirmed their answer was based on the custom that requires all landowners to approve any alienation of land – including sales – a custom that is explicitly provided in Section 1(2) of Article X of the RMI Constitution. The TRC found it was unable determine from the document itself that it was a valid bill of sales because all signatories were deceased, making it impossible to confirm whether Labilliet signed as Alap and Dri Jerbal or whether his son, Jeilar, signed on Labilliet’s behalf.
• Alik v Abner (Opinion & Answer of the Traditional Rights Court [on remand from the Supreme Court]), CA 2017-00226 (05/26/26) [Marshallese][English]. The Supreme Court remanded this case for clarification of the TRC decision that held Robinson Abner as the proper person to hold and exercise the rights and title of Senior Dri Jerbal in light of Section 905 of 39 MIRC, Customary Law (Succession of Customary Title, Right, and Interest) (Ralik Chain) Act, 2023. The TRC relied on Liriwa’s genealogy chart (Intervenor’s Exhibit B), and the order of succession as reflected therein alongside the parties’ evidence and the applicable principles of Marshallese custom. In its analysis of the above, the TRC reaffirmed its prior conclusion that Robinson Abner is the Senior Dri Jerbal for Aiboj Weto in Bikej Island, Kwajalein Atoll. The decision was based upon the succession line of the first botoktok who held and exercised the Senior Dri Jerbal rights and title – Abner – in whom Robinson is a direct descendant. The TRC also held that Cansee is the daughter of Lisos a toor in botoktok from the older bwij line. Although a blood descendant, the first botoktok line of Abner has not been extinguished and must continue with Robinson.
• Cenicola v. MIDB v. Kabua, (Opinion & Answer of the Traditional Rights Court), CA 2018-00213 (04/13/26) [Marshallese][English]. This is a dispute over the Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal rights and titles for Bukonkur Weto in Delap, Majuro Atoll. The evidence establishes that Bukonkur was an imon bwij from Likilon to her son, Selvenios. The bwij became extinct when she passed away and she bore one son (who had no children) and adopted another son (Selvenios). From Selvenios to his children, toor-in-botoktok, the succession line was through him, a botoktok. The TRC held that Hiromi Kabuam toor-in-botoktok, as the eldest child, is the proper person to hold and exercise the rights and title of Alap and Rosalie Aten Konou, the younger living child, the rightful Senior Dri Jerbal.
• Rusin v. Kabua, Kabua-Jeik, and Kabua (Opinion & Answer of the Traditional Rights Court [to Supplemental Questions]), CA 2023-00953 (04/06/26) [Marshallese][English]. Following the TRC’s answers to the High Court’s three questions, additional questions were referred back for further clarification: Question 1: Can the TRC clarify its recognition of Phillip Kabua as he was dismissed as a party after his death in Jan. 31, 2024? The TRC held that because Phillip Kabua is the person in whom the landowners made the agreement with, that the inclusion of his name in the TRC’s answer was necessary to establish his daughters’ claims over Buruon. Question 2: Can the TRC clarify its answer that “the Bill of Sale…is not a valid sales agreement” as a legal answer or one grounded in Marshallese custom and tradition. If custom, what Marshallese custom and tradition has been applied? The TRC held the bill of sale itself, as a document, was insufficient as a reliable source. However, it took into consideration the circumstantial evidence along side it that an agreement existed between Phillip Kabua and the landowners of Buruon. Question 3: Can the TRC clarify its finding that the lapse of 42 years is a long time and Plaintiff Hattie is barred from invalidating the sales agreement…an application of the legal doctrines of laches, acquiescence, equitable estoppel or otherwise in its reasoning, and if their bar on Plaintiff is otherwise grounded in Marshallese custom, identify the custom? The TRC held that the custom of Jab Komakut Drekein Jenme Eo was applied as was also held in Thomas v. Samson v. Alik, 3 MILR 71 and Jorbon v. Michael and Laelan, CA 2023-01720.

2025

• Zackios v Carmel (Opinion and Answer) CA 2023-149 (12/11/25) [Marshallese] [English]. The dispute concerns who the rightful holder of the Senior Dri Jerbal rights and title over a portion of Lomelan Weto in Rairok, Majuro Atoll. The defendant claims the rights should revert to his bwij family because unlike her predecessors, plaintiff Kita Zackios is not acknowledged or recognized by both the Iroijlaplap and Alap as the current Senior Dri Jerbal. The TRC found the evidence establishes that the rights and title of Senior Dri Jerbal began with Lemejeik in 1959 and was succeeded by Branij and then Lawrence Kumtak (Plaintiff’s father). The TRC found insufficient evidence to support the defendant’s claim to revert the rights back to his family bwij and found that the long-standing arrangement since 1959, along with the Iroijlaplap recognition, weigh in favor of the plaintiff’s claim. The TRC concluded that plaintiff Kita Zackios was the rightful holder of the Senior Dri Jerbal rights and title over a portion of Lomelan and that Defendant Winton Lomot, as alap, cannot unilaterally reclaim the rights for his bwij without a just cause under the custom of jab komakit drekein jenme eo.
• Lekka v Kaiko and Kiako (Opinion on Additional Questions) CA 2017-149 (11/05/25) [Marshallese] [English]. This case involves a dispute over the marital home of Plaintiff Jien Lekka and Defendant Key Kaiko following their divorce. The TRC found that the house was built on a land leased to the plaintiff only. The plaintiff was also found to be the recognized owner of the house by the landowners, and not the defendant. The TRC ultimately found and concluded that under the custom of imon jolet, Jien was given the right to build and live on Ronbar Weto by the landowners and the house rightfully belongs to him, not jointly with Key Kaiko.
• Domnick v. Kramer (Opinion & Opinion & Answer of the Tradictional Rights Court, CA 2019-00202 (09/12/25) [Marshallese][English]. This case involves a dispute concerning the proper successor(s) of Wilhelm Capelle. Defendant Kramer claimed her rights supersedes plaintiff and the other adopted children’s claims to Wilhelm’s purchased lands because she is a direct blood descendant through her grandmother, Hannah Capelle, alleged to be the natural (but illegitimate and unacknowledged) daughter of Wilhelm Capelle and Lydia Milne. The TRC found that the two wills concerning the Capelle and deBrum lands on Likiep Atoll, along with their personal properties, omitted defendant’s ancestress’s name. The TRC, however, accepted the testimonial evidence by family members that acknowledged Hannah as Wilhelm’s illegitimate child through the custom of botoktok ej kir botoktok. The TRC concluded that although she is acknowledged under the custom as a descendant of Wilhelm, the omission of Hannah’s name from both wills bars her from inheriting rights, titles, or copra proceeds from Wilhelm’s lands. The adopted children named in Wilhelm’s will were determined as the proper successors of Wilhelm and eligible to sit as “Owners” in the House of Iroij under the custom of jab komakit drekein jenme eo which respects the long-established wills executed by Adolf Capelle in 1904 and Wilhelm Capelle in 1919.
• Zedkaia, et al., v. David and Antolok (Opinion & Opinion & Answer of the Traditional Rights Court, CA 2022-01264 (08/05/25) [Marshallese][English]. This case involves a dispute over the Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal rights and titles for Jebel Weto in Delap, Majuro Atoll. The TRC found the original recipient of the rights and titles of Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal – Martha Tareo – misused her authority and was consequently divested of those rights by Iroijlaplap Amata Kabua in 1989-1990. The successor Iroijlaplap, Leroij Atama Zedkaia, transferred those rights and titles to Andrew Bing in 2007. The TRC found both divestiture and transfer valid under customary law, Iroij im jela and jab komakit drekein jenme eo, and concluded that Martha accepted the decision through her prolonged silence. The TRC therefore declared Talwoj Bing, Andrew Bing’s successor, as the proper Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal over Jebel Weto.
• Rusin v. Kabua, Kabua-Jeik, and Kabua (Opinion & Answer of the Traditional Rights Court, CA 2023-00953 (07/02/25) [Marshallese][English]. This is a dispute over the Iroijedrik, Alap, and Senior Dri Jerbal rights and titles for Buruon Island, Majuro Atoll. The TRC found that the 1983 “Bill of Sale” contained discrepancies and was poorly drafted, however, found and concluded that the agreement was intended and effectively executed as evidenced by the subsequent conduct of the plaintiff’s predecessor – who held both Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal titles – and by the plaintiff herself, following her predecessor’s passing, and by the defendants’ predecessor, Phillip Kabua, and his family. These acts and in actions took place over a period of more than 40 years. The TRC held that the plaintiff’s failure to assert her claim since she became the Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal over Labiliet’s lands coupled with her absence during the trial substantially weakened her case against the circumstantial evidence surrounding the conduct of the parties’ predecessors and the parties’ themselves following the agreement. The TRC based their decision of validating the transfer and rejecting the plaintiff’s claim on the cumulative evidence, circumstantial evidence and the conduct of both parties. The TRC ultimately declared the defendants were the proper persons to hold all three titles – Iroijedrik, Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal – on Buruon Island, Majuro Atoll.
• Jorbon v. Michael and Lealang (Opinion & Answer of the TRC to Additional Questions) CA 2023-01720 (06/27/25) [Marshallese][English]. This case was referred back for the TRC to answer additional questions. The TRC upheld the plaintiff’s claim based on Leroij Kalora Zion’s earlier transfer of the Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal titles to him under the custom of jab komakit drekein jenme eo, stating the custom binds her successor Iroijedriks – Kelai Nemna, Walter Laelang, and Anke Laelang. The TRC also ruled that Defendant Michael is required to obtain the signatures of all titleholders pursuant to §1(2) of Article X of the RMI Constitution in order to construct and reside in a house on Arkan Weto. The TRC found and concluded that Defendant Michael cannot lawfully complete or reside in his house without the plaintiff’s consent and that he is obligated, under the custom of reciprocity, to pay tribute to the plaintiff and respect him as Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal.
• In re the Application for Citizenship by Registration by Betty James (Opinion & Answer of the TRC) CA 2024-00557 (04/17/25) [Marshallese][English]. This is an application for citizenship based on claims for the Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal rights and title on several wetos in Jaluit Atoll. The TRC held that the petitioner lacked verifiable customary rights and titles of Alap and Dri Jerbal to the wetos listed in her menmenbwij. The TRC found that the petitioner’s menmenbwij did not establish alap or dri jerbal rights and titles, which formed the basis of her citizenship application. The TRC, however, held the petitioner may seek customary consent from the current titleholders – Iroijlaplap, Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal – to reside and harvest the land parcels as an 11th generation descendant of a Marshallese male.
• Secretary of Finance v. Amos and Ten (Opinion of the Traditional Rights Court) CA 2022-00609 (04/11/25) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the Alap rights and title for Wonmak (South), Kwajalein Atoll. The TRC held that Albert Amos was the proper person to exercise the Alap title and concluded that the subsequent recognitions in 2021 and 2022, which recognized a different succession line, lacked sufficient basis and determined those as inconsistent with the established genealogical and customary framework presented by the current Iroijlaplap of the land parcel and the chairman of the Iroijlaplap Committee for the Mojen eo an Loeak, Koba Maron, in the case.
• Lelwoj v. Helies and Samson (Opinion of the Traditional Rights Court) CA 2023-01257 (03/17/25) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the ownership of a house built on land by a person who had no land rights on the land and whether that original builder abandoned the house. The TRC found that Nerissa Helies abandoned her house for over 40 years and sought to have her niece, Sophia Lelwoj, evicted from the house through the current alap. Without the approval of the Senior Dri Jerbal, the TRC found the alap’s unilateral decision was contrary to Marshallese custom and concluded that evicting Sophia and her mother, Tarbwij, was unreasonable and inconsistent with Marshallese custom. The TRC also held that their family continually occupied the house for 27 years, timely and fully satisfied the mortgage payments, and carried out their customary duties. Ultimately, the TRC held that Tarbwij Lelwoj and her family’s long-term occupancy, financial commitment, and customary obligations outweighed Nerissa’s claim over the house and found her eviction of Sophia an unlawful attempt to reclaim the house. The plaintiff, on behalf of Tarbwij Lelwoj, was determined as the rightful owner of the house.
• DeBrum v Konou (Opinion of the Traditional Rights Court) CA 2021-01452 (2007-029) (01/13/25) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the Senior Dri Jerbal rights and title for Kiniloke Weto in Rairok, Majuro Atoll. A hearing and determination were made by another TRC Panel in 2007 and 2008 respectively. This decision is the third determination in which a different composition of the TRC proceeded with a review of the record without a hearing upon the request by both parties to waive their rights to one. Following both parties’ waiver of their rights to another trial hearing filed June 21, 2024, the TRC reconfirmed the validity of the 1989 transfer of the Senior Dri Jerbal rights and title to Fred deBrum. It also confirmed Winton Maun’s rights on the land as a member of the bwij, however ruled that they both need permission from all three titleholders.

2024

• In re the Confirmation of Customary Adoption of KN and PN, minor children, by Christina M. Lemari (Opinion & Answer of the TRC) CA 2024-01336 (11/25/24) [Marshallese][English]. This is an application for the confirmation of a customary adoption of two minors by their maternal grandmother. The Court invoked the custom of kanin lujen and declared the adoption of the children valid under that custom. The Court held that the consent of both parents is not necessarily required under the custom of kanin lujen as it is intended to strengthen family unity through family expansion, not separation.
• In re the Application for Citzenship by Registration by Teimnauea Tiare Yee On (Opinion & Answer of the TRC) CA 2024-01336 (11/22/24) [Marshallese][English]. This is an application for citizenship through claims of Alap and Dri Jerbal rights for Namok Island, Mili Atoll. The Court denied the petitioner’s claim to the Alap and Dri Jerbal rights and titles over Namok Island as a sixth-generation descendant of a Marshallese male because it found the current Alap and Dri Jerbal were actively exercising their customary obligations and authority under Marshallese custom. The denial was based on the petitioner’s failure to establish a verifiable menmenbwij and/or kalimur because the documents submitted as evidence were contradictory of one another.
• Rusin v. Jeilar, et al. (Opinion & Answer of the TRC) CA 2023-00393 (11/08/24) [Marshallese][English]. This is a dispute over the Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal rights and title for Kimor Weto in Ajeltake, Majuro Atoll. The Court found Hattie has authority under custom to evict the defendants from Kimor if she chooses. Because Kimor has no Iroijlaplap/Iroijerik, Hattie has exclusive authority as Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal and the defendants’ statement that they would not recognize her as Alap even if the courts declare her as such demonstrated flagrant disregard and disrespect for the Alap under custom. Their adverse conduct and refusal to comply with customary obligation were held by the TRC as sufficient cause for eviction, should Hattie decides to do so.
• Ten v. Kabua, et al. (Opinion & Answer of the TRC) CA 2022-02153 (09/03/24) [Marshallese][English]. This is a dispute over the Alap rights and title on Wonmok (North), Kwajalein Atoll. The Court found that plaintiff Ten was not the Alap as a descendant of Abija and Liodrik because Liodrik’s bwij became extinct upon her death. The bwij extinction thereby changed the succession line to the botoktok line of which the birth of a female, Larok, established a new bwij line in which defendants Roselin and Albert are descendants and in the Alap succession line. The TRC also found that due to plaintiff’s allegiance to a rival Iroijlaplap, Defendant Iroij Lanny divested her of the senior dri jerbal rights and title under the customary principle of tomewa. The Court confirmed the authority of the Iroij/manmaronron and upheld the transfer to Defendant Tibet Phillip as the recognized Senior Dri Jerbal.
• Jorbon v. Michael and Lealang (Opinion & Answer of the TRC) CA 2023-01720 (06/14/24) [Marshallese][English]. This is a land dispute which seeks to determine whether Defendant Iroijerik Walter Laelang is authorized under custom to permit Defendant Rien Michael to build a house on Arkan Weto without notice to, or the consent of, Plaintiff Jack Jorbon, the Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal. The Court held that while an Iroijerik can authorize construction, Laelang’s decision was unreasonable under customary law because it ignored the principle of iroij im jela and the requirement to consult with the Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal under the custom of reciprocity. The Court reaffirmed plaintiff Jorbon as Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal of Arkan and found defendant Laelang’s authorization to defendant Michael to construct his home unreasonable without plaintiff’s consent on the basis of §1(2) of Article X of the Constitution, iroij im jela, and jab komakit drekein jenme eo which safeguards long-established arrangements under the custom from unreasonable or unjustified changes.
• Langmour, et al. v Jilej and Samson v. Heine (Opinion & Answer of the TRC) CA 2017-024 (06/07/24) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal rights and titles on Eonmaj Weto in Rita, Majuro Atoll. The issue is whether the land was an imon bwij or an eomelan/kotra, and whether the Senior Dri Jerbal rights and title was a kitdre, gift, from Lazarus to his wife, Liwaika. The TRC found the evidence supported the plaintiffs’ claim that Eonmaj is an imon bwij, not an eomelan/kotra as claimed by the defendants. It also found the kitdre of the senior dri jerbal rights and title was validly conveyed to Liwaika, thereby establishing a new line of succession in Liwaika’s direct descendants, not her siblings – as children of Elizabeth – a claim made by both the Plaintiffs and Defendants. The TRC concluded that plaintiff Trusilla Langmour – eldest member of the bwij – was the rightful Alap and Intervenor Susan Heine was the rightful Senior Dri Jerbal on Eonmaj Weto.
• Langidrik, et al. v Reimers, et al. (Opinion & Answer of the TRC) CA 2017-00022 (04/03/24) [Marshallese] [English]. This is the second referral from the High Court to the TRC with additional questions. The additional questions asked for the TRC to reconsider Exhibit D-10 in its determination of whether the genealogy represents the Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal lineage for Beran Island or Jabat Island and the testimony of Bilton Sam, and to confirm its conclusion whether the Plaintiffs had actual knowledge of the identity of the Iroijlaplap who put them on Beran Island or gave them the Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal rights and titles. In its response, the TRC confirmed that Exhibit D-10 depicts a lineage of the 3rd generation, and that the first alap of Jittoen on Beran Island was Langidrik. A letter, depicted in Exhibit D-7, shows Libetok directed Morry Samson to attend a meeting as an Alap of Beran Island, not Langidrik. In addition, the TRC found Eli Sam’s testimony, which supports Langidrik’s claim, was problematic because he was unable to confirm who gave the rights and titles of Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal to Langidrik or Sam, or what Iroijlaplap placed them on the island. The TRC further found that Bilton Sam’s testimony alludes to another claim in which a man named Jorju was alleged as an alap and dri-jerbal of Beran Island for a time, but that Iroijlaplap Laelan Kabua had divested him of those rights and titles for neglecting his duties and responsibilities. In considering all the questions referred back, the TRC found the evidence contradicted each claim that was asserted. The TRC concluded that there was insufficient evidence to definitively determine that the genealogy depicted in Exhibit D-10 was from Beran Island. It also reaffirmed its previous decision which determined that the genealogy was from Jabat Island instead, and that Beran Island is a Mo land which exclusively belongs to the Iroijlaplap and his family.

2023

• Sorimle, et al., v Jerbal CN 2016-143 (Answer to Supplemental Questions) (10/11/22)[Marshallese][English]. Following the first opinion by the TRC, the High Court referred the case back for resolution of additional evidentiary questions. After admitting additional evidence, the TRC found that the TRC Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 15, permitted the Court to admit defendant’s Exhibit D-2, which was a depiction of Ratak Ean’s menmenbwij. In its deliberation for the second time around, it held that plaintiff Sorimle’s Exhibits P-10, P-7, and P-16 contradicted one another, and the underlying Exhibit P-10 was found insufficient to establish that Lobeia held the iroijlaplap title and rights on Biken, Aur and Airok, Maloelap. The Court further found that Leroij Liwoj descends from reigning iroijlaplaps for more than 96 years and the proper person to hold and exercise the Iroijlaplap rights and title on the two islands.
• Tokjen v Lodge-Lobju and Lodge-Ned (Opinion & Answer of the Traditional Rights Court) CA 2018-00294 (10/02/23) [Marshallese][English]. This is a dispute over the rights and titles of Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal for Wotje Weto in Delap, Majuro Atoll. The evidence establishes that the parties come from two distinct lineages – Kejon Kejon and Labbo Loren – husband and wife. The TRC found that Wotje Weto was a botoktok land, passed from Laninbit Kejon – the only son of Kejon and Labbo – to his only daughter, Francis Laninbit. From Francis Laninbit to the defendants, the land succession transitioned into a bwij succession lineage. The evidence also shows that the Iroijlaplaps of Wotje Weto, from Iroijlaplap Aisea David to the current Leroij Esther Zedkaia, have consistently recognized the defendants’ predecessors since Labbo. Testimony from the alaps of two adjacent land parcels also confirmed Laninbit’s exercise of both the Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal titles. Ultimately, the TRC held that Barbara Lodge-Lobju was the proper person to hold and exercise the Alap rights and title, while the Senior Dri Jerbal rights and title are to be held by Yoland Lodge-Ned.
• Alik v Kintaro (TRC [Amended] Opinion & Answer) CA 2022-021 (09/11/23) [Marshallese][English]. This is a dispute over the Alap rights and title for Enbar Weto, Ebon Atoll. The evidence establishes that Enbar Weto was an imon aje from Binikio to Milka. Milka is Yoseph Kintaro’s ancestress. So, the TRC held he was the proper person to hold and exercise the rights and title of Alap.
• Malachi v Abon (Opinion to [Second] Additional Questions) CA 2013-00213 (06/16/23) [Marshallese] [English]. Following the first referral of additional questions, the High Court referred, for a second time, additional questions. It asked whether, in the absence of a kalimur, Neijab’s adopted son, Sailass Malachi (and his descendants), a kanin lujen, had any rights in the line of succession for Mokeo Weto. The TRC held that because both Neimako Abon and Sailass Malachi were adopted by Taklemen and Neijab respectively, and were from outside the bwij and not direct descendants, they cannot directly or normally inherit the rights and titles on the land. The kalimur by Taklemen to Neimako enabled her and her descendants to inherit both rights, and without one, Sailass cannot be said to be in the line of succession as a descendant of Neijab because the bwij line ended with both Neijab and Taklemen. The Court held that without a kalimur, Mokeo Weto would have returned to the Iroijlaplap to be reassigned or awarded to another person or bwij. Ultimately, the TRC said Taklemen’s kalimur to Neimako signified a new arrangement on Mokeo Weto and as Neimako’s son, Terry Abon is the proper person to hold and exercise both titles of Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal.

2022

• Malachi v Abon (Opinion to [First] Additional Questions) CA 2013-00213 (12/19/22) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a referral back to the TRC for clarification of a paragraph on page 4 of its initial Opinion and Answer. The TRC clarified that Mokeo Weto changed from an Imon Ninnin to an Imon Bwij after Neiboke in whom a new bwij began. The bwij line became extinct with Taklemen and since she made a kalimur while she was alive and before her demise to her only the adopted child, Neimako Abon, she was already declared the heir apparent and in line to succeed as both Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal. Taklemen’s kalimur to Neimako was certified by the Iroijlaplap. Accordingly, Neimako’s descendants would also inherit both titles. The TRC reiterate its finding and conclusion that Terry Abon was the proper person to hold and exercise both titles under the custom.
• Bikajela v Katwan CA 2020-640 (05/13/22) [Marshallese][English] This is a dispute over the Alap rights and title for Ajokla Island, Majuro Atoll. Initially, it was a dispute involving both Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal rights and titles, however, the claimant for the Senior Dri Jerbal rights and title withdrew his claim as there were no longer any issues with those rights and title. The TRC found the claimants were descendants from the same family – the defendant was from the eldest bwij and the plaintiff from a younger one. The TRC found the eldest bwij had remained on Mili during the clean-up efforts on Majuro following the typhoon of the 1940s or 1950s despite a proclamation by Iroijlaplap Jebdrik calling his people to assist. Libelto, a.k.a. Libalto, from the younger bwij, lived on Majuro and joined the clean-up efforts. The TRC found that, as a result, the Iroijedriks in subsequent succession from Jebdrik, recognized Libalto’s descendants as Alaps for Ajokla. At the same time, the Iroijedriks also ensured that descendants from the eldest bwij, who eventually returned to Majuro, retained not only a place in Ajokla, but also in the village of Laura. The TRC ultimately held that both bwij lines were recognized as Alaps through the division of Ajokla into two parts – North and South. The Court awarded the northern portion to defendant Katwan, as the proper person to hold and exercise the rights and title of Alap, and the southern portion to plaintiff Bikajela, consistent with the Iroijedrik’s certification.
• Jorbon v Akira CA 2020-00329 (Answer to Second Additional Question) (05/12/22) [Marshallese] [English]. The High Court referred an additional question for a second time, seeking the TRC’s explicit “yes” or “no” answer to the validity of Iroijedrik Nemna’s authorization to defendant Akira. The TRC held the Iroijedrik’s authorization was valid at the time he made it as he did not recognize or know the plaintiff as his alap. The TRC also held that now that the TRC has formally recognize the plaintiff as the proper person to hold and exercise the alap and senior dri jerbal for Arkan, the Iroijedrik is obliged to recognize him as such going forward.
• Jorbon v Akira CA 2020-00329 (Answer to Additional Question) (05/05/22) [Marshallese][English]. Following the TRC’s first decision and answer to question 2, the High Court referred an additional question for the TRC to clarify Iroijedrik Nemna’s authorization that was granted to defendant Akira. The TRC reiterated the validity of Iroijedrik Nemna’s authority under custom that gave permission to defendant Akira to construct a dwelling house on Arkan, and further found that based on Defendant’s Exhibits A and B, the authorization was not arbitrary or unilateral, but based on the Iroijedrik’s misunderstanding that the Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal for Arkan were his younger siblings – Walter Laelang and Arleen Laelang, respectively.
• Jorbon v Akira CA 2020-00329 (01/11/22) [Marshallese][English]. This is a dispute over the Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal rights and titles for Arkan Weto in Rairok, Majuro Atoll. The plaintiff argues the Iroijedrik of Arkan, Iroij Kelai Nemna, cannot unilaterally permit defendant Akira to construct a dwelling house on the land without consulting him, the Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal. Because his mother and predecessor had transferred/sold those rights to him, Iroij Kelai does not have exclusive authority over Arkan. Akira claims no rights or titles over Arkan, but contends he was only following Iroij Kelai’s permission to proceed with his construction. The TRC found that the transfer of the alap and senior dri jerbal rights and titles was valid as all the proper persons who held the rights and titles at the time of sales appeared to have signed the document or “bill of sales”. So, it held that although Iroij Kelai Nemna has authority to permit the defendant to build a house on Arkan, that the custom of jela nae dron im lale dron or mutual respect and reciprocity, requires consultation with the plaintiff.
• Rilometo and Rilometo v Kabua v Botla and Moore CA 2018-00006 (01/07/22) [Marshallese][English]. This is a dispute over the Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal rights and titles for Enekotkot Island, Arno Atoll. Plaintiffs are descendants of an adopted daughter of a younger bwij, the defendant is a daughter of an adopted son of the eldest bwij, and the intervenors are descendants of the botoktok line. Based on the parties menmenbwij and a kalimur by Neiboria (eldest and last bwij member), the TRC found that Intervenor Moore is a descendant from a new bwij line that was borne from the eldest male, Jamos, toor-in-botoktok, and therefore the proper person to hold and exercise the Alap rights for Enekotkot Island. However, because of the kalimur by Neiboria that granted the Senior Dri Jerbal rights and title for Jittaken to defendant Kabua’s father, Ankien Joram, the TRC held that defendant Kabua was the proper person to hold those rights and title for that portion while Intervenor Moore was declared the Senior Dri Jerbal for Jottoen, the opposite side of Enekotkot Island.

2021

• Malachi v Abon (Amended) CA 2013-00213 (11/23/21) [Marshallese] [English]. In this amended opinion, the TRC reiterated their prior decision declaring Terry Abon as the proper person to hold and exercise the rights and titles of Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal for Mokeo Weto. The TRC further clarified that Taklemen and Neijab were both childless and both adopted children from outside the bwij. Taklemen adopted Neimako and Neijab adopted Sailass Malachi. Neijab failed to leave a will for her adopted son, Sailass Malachi. Taklemen, however, left a will for her adopted daughter, Neimako – the defendant’s mother. At Takelmen’s burial, the current Iroijlaplap of Mokeo Weto, Iroijlaplap Jurelang, declared his recognition of Terry Abon, as Taklemen’s son, the proper person to hold and exercise both Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal rights over Mokeo. The TRC found the acknowledgement further solidified the validity of Taklemen’s kalimur under the custom.
• Malachi v Abon CA 2013-00213 (11/12/21) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal rights and titles for Mokeo Weto in Delap, Majuro Atoll. The TRC found that Mokeo Weto was an imon ninnin from Lakuboke to his daughter, Neiboke. From Neiboke, it passed down in subsequent succession to Neijab and Taklemen. The TRC found that the defendant, Abon, is the proper person to inherit both rights and titles from Taklemen following the change from an imon ninnin to an imon bwij of Neiboke’s lineage.
• Lekka v Kaiko and Kiako (Opinion on Supplementary Questions) CA 2017-00149 (09/07/21) [Marshallese] [English]. In this second referral from the High Court, the TRC held that the marital house was constructed under a lease agreement specifically between the plaintiff, Jien Lekka, and the landowners of the land for the purpose of residing with his then wife, defendant Key, together with their children. The custom applicable in the case, the TRC held, is the custom of Amnak or residing in the house or on the land under an agreement. This, the TRC held, was specifically granted to Jien Lekks, not Key Kaiko.
• Makroro v Lani, Laieb, and Mack, CA 2018-00074 (amended dissenting opinion) (06/22/21) [Marshallese] [English] In his dissenting opinion, Pro Tem Judge, Hon. Milton Zackios, found that the plaintiff, Kijolok Beasa, and defendant, Johhny Mack, are both the proper persons to hold and exercise the Senior Dri Jerbal rights and title over Ronbad Weto in Rairok, Majuro Atoll. He reasoned that the special appointment/arrangement made by Alap Libojrak to have equal shares between the descendants of Litaimon Makroro and Arkilos Konou – her two adopted children – ought to continue without interruption unless a just reason arises and causes it to stop or terminate. This is consistent with the custom of jab iun ak ukoj drekein jinme eo which translates to “do not move the bedrock or long-established foundation”..
• Makroro v Lani, Laieb, and Mack, CA 2018-00074 (majority opinion) (06/16/21) [Marshallese][English] This is a dispute over the Senior Dri Jerbal rights and title for Ronbad Weto in Rairok, Majuro Atoll. The dispute stems from defendant Mack’s advice to defendant Lani to construct her house on Ronbad instead of Kinawe (the adjacent weto owned by the same alap, defendant Laieb). Mack’s advice was approved by alap Laieb. The plaintiff claims he should have been consulted by Mack before advising Lani to seek Laieb’s permission. The Majority decision found that Clary Makroro, a patrilineal descendant, is the proper successor for the Senior Dri Jerbal rights and title as was his father before him, Clancy Makroro. The Majority decision also found that defendant Johnny Mack is a relative from the female line.
• Beaja and Jorbon v Hitto and Emil, CA 2003-00059, and Dribo and Abner v Jorbon, Jorkan, and Alik, CA 2017-00226 (03/11/21) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the rights and titles of Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal for Aiboj Weto on Bikej Island, Kwajalein Atoll. The TRC found that Aiboj Weto on Bikej is distinct from Aiboj Weto on Jaluit Atoll, that it was a Morjinkot land from Iroij Laninbit to Laemokmok, and that these types of gift lands can only be changed or returned upon a commission of a serious customary wrong against the Iroijlaplap or the custom. The TRC further found that the land is now an imon bwij through Liriwa. As such, Walur Beaja was declared the proper person to hold and exercise the rights and title of Alap and Robinson Abner the Senior Dri Jerbal as a descendant of Abner through Abner’s eldest son, Kotmene. The TRC also held that it is the Alap’s responsibility to ensure peace and harmony among the bwij and the Senior Dri Jerbal’s responsibility to look after those under his care as well.

2020

• Lekka v Kaiko and Kiako, CA 2017-00149 (02/06/20) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the marital home of the plaintiff and defendant, Key Kaiko, located on a parcel of land to which neither holds any rights or interests. The question before the TRC was whether a custom exists that determines ownership of a marital house when a couple divorces. The TRC answered in the affirmative, stating that such a custom does exists. However, the TRC did not specify the custom in its formal response. In its analysis, the Court alluded to the custom of imon jolet, implicitly indicating that the house should be considered an imon jolet granted to the plaintiff, Jien Lekka, from the landowners.
• Noah and Noah v Patrick and Calep v Latdrik, CA 2015-00095 (01/23/20) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the rights and titles Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal for Lokejbar Weto in Rairok, Majuro Atoll. The TRC found the evidence supported defendant Patrick’s assertion that a kalimur was made by Bojan Noah, the last Alap of Lokejbar. This was a gift for helping Bojan Noah when he sought medical care in Hawaii. The TRC therefore held Patrick was the proper person to hold and exercise the Alap rights and title on the lagoon side. By the same token, the TRC held defendant Caleb was the proper person to hold and exercise the rights and title of Senior Dri Jerbal on the lagoon side of Lokejbar. The TRC further found the evidence also established that Bojan Noah held both the Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal rights and title since Iroijlaplap Amata Kabua and his successors, Leroij Atma Zedkaia, Iroijlaplap Jurelang Zedkaia, and the current Iroijlaplap, Lein Zedkaia. Therefore, the TRC held that Noah Noah was the proper person to hold and exercise the Alap rights and title for the oceanside of Lokejbar as Bojan’s son and successor-in-interest.

2019

• Kotton v Tarilang, et al., CA 2018-00010 (11/12/19) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the Senior Dri Jerbal rights and title over three wetos on Ijoen Island in Arno Atoll, lands belonging to the bwij, imon bwij. The TRC held that according to the parties’ menmenbwij, genealogy chart, Plaintiff Kotton was the eldest descendant from the botoktok line. He was accordingly determined to be the proper person to hold and exercise the Senior Dri-Jerbal rights and title as a patrilineal descendant on the bwij lands.
• Samuel v Langinbelik, CA 2018-00191 (10/16/19) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the Iroijedrik, alap and senior dri jerbal rights and title for Monkut in Rita, Majuro Atoll. The TRC held that according to Marshallese custom, Monkut Weto, initially passed down as an imon ninnin to Likaulik from her father, was converted into an imon bwij when the progenitor Lijuiar assumed her titles. The evidence established that the Plaintiff is a bwij descendant while the Defendant, a grandchild of Bartimius, is a botokbok descendant. The TRC further found that Adelma Libao Samuel, represented by Ritel Samuel, a bwij descendant, was the proper person to hold and exercise the Iroijedrik and Alap rights and titles. On the other hand, Aldia Langrine Langinbelik, a descendant from the botoktok line, was recognized as the proper person to hold and exercise the rights and title of Senior Dri-Jerbal.
• Langdrik, et al., v Reimers, et al., CA 2017-00022 (05/08/19) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute involving alap and senior dri jerbal rights and titles on Beran Island, Ailinglaplap Atoll, and whether the island was designated as a mo land under Marshallese custom by Iroijlaplap Laelan Kabua. The TRC found insufficient evidence to support the Plaintiffs’ claim that Beran Island was an imon aje or katlep, which formed the basis of their claims to the alap and dri jerbal rights and title. Instead, the TRC held that Beran Island is a mo land under the domain of Iroijlaplap Laelan Kabua. It further determined that the Plaintiffs’ menmenbwij, genealogy chart, which they relied upon to substantiate their claim, originated from the island of Jabat, not Beran Island.
• Sorimle, Lakjohn, and Sorimle v Jerbal, CA 2016-00143 (dissenting opinion) (05/03/19) [Marshallese] [English]. TRC Chief Judge Elbon dissented from the majority and stated that Plaintiff Hensey Sorimle is the proper person to hold and exercise the rights and title of Iroijlaplap for the lands in dispute based on historical accounts by foreign visitors shown in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit P6, and Jack A. Tobin’s book.
• Sorimle, Lakjohn, and Sorimle v Jerbal, CA 2016-00143 (majority opinion) (05/03/19) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the Iroijlaplap rights and title over Airok, Maloelap Atoll and Biken, Aur Atoll. The case was brought against Liwoj Jerbal, the current Iroijlaplap, paramount chief for the disputed lands by Hensey Sorimle. A majority of the TRC held Leroij Liwoj is the proper person to hold and exercise those rights and title based on the evidence that establishes Liwoj’s predecessors had held the title for at least 90 years. The TRC further stated the plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient to establish that Lobeia, his ancestor, held those rights and title by the custom of morijinkwot, bok maan made, and toor in botoktok.
• Tibon v. Molik v. deBrum (Opn & Ans Second Referral), CA 2003-00122 (01/10/19) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the Alap rights and title on Teron Weto in Rita, Majuro Atoll. The question, on its second referral from the High Court, asks whether the younger bwij of Lijuiep should continue to hold the rights and title of Alap instead of the older bwij of Limewa. Although the older bwij is the proper succession line for the rights and title of Alap, the long-established arrangement between the two bwij changed that. The TRC held the agreement effectively changed the ordinary succession rule for an imon bwij under custom and without a just cause under the custom, it cannot be changed.

2018

• Bing v. Iosia and deBrum, CA 2017-00236 (12/31/18) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over a 1/11 share of the Senior Dri Jerbal rights and title on Eru Island, Kwajalein Atoll. The TRC held that it was proper, under Marshallese custom, for Iroijlaplap Anjua Loeak to certify and recognize the eldest descendants of Joma’s adopted children, Kurma and Namiko, currently Patrick Korok and Lan Debrum, to receive equal shares of the 1/11 Senior Dri-Jerbal share previously received by Joma on Eru Island, Kwajalein Atoll.
• Jekkar v Jeppa, et al., CA 17-64 (12/17/18) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the Iroijedrik rights and title for Biken Island in Aur Atoll. The TRC held that Plaintiff Susan Jeppa Jekkar, the older sister, was the proper person to hold and exercise the Iroijedrik rights and title and that Defendant Wanmij Jeppa, the younger sister, despite the determination in Civil Action No. 2008-238, was not the proper person to currently hold and exercise the Iroijedrik title on Biken Island, Aur Atoll. The prior decision was based on an assertion by defendant that her older sister had already passed away.
• Zedkeia v. Leit and Kedi, CA 14-299 (08/09/18) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal rights and titles for Monloklap Weto in Ajeltake, Majuro Atoll. The TRC held that Defendant Lisen Leit was the proper person to hold and exercise the rights and titles of Alap and Senior Dri-Jerbal and not her older sister, Emile Aine. The change in the succession line was exclusive to Monloklap Weto and not the other land parcels that were previously under Alap Litiria’s ownership. This, the TRC found and concluded, was an arrangement made by Alap Litiria and the Iroijs of Monloklap Weto.
• Lorak v. Philippo, Mea, and March, CA 14-232 (08/08/18) [Marshallese]  [English]. This is a dispute over the rights and titles of Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal for To Weto and Enejibaru on Majuro Atoll. The TRC found that To Weto and Enejibaru are imon bwij and not imon ninnin to Lito Mea from Ladrille as his kanne lujen, a.k.a. kanin lojeo. There was insufficient evidence to support the Defendants’ claim that Lito was gifted with the land parcels as Ladrille’s kanin lojeo. The TRC therefore held that indeed, Lito Mea was the adopted kanin lojeo child of Ladrille, but he also had an older sibling, Lenwad, who had descendants. As the only bwij line, Lenwad’s descendants were unaware that Ladrille gifted To Weto and Enejibaru as imon ninnin to Lito Mea – a required principle dictated by the custom. The TRC found that Atlon Calep and Akki Laruon, descendants of Lenwad, were ultimately the proper persons to hold and exercise the rights and titles of Alap and Senior Dri-Jerbal on To Weto and Enejibaru as shown in the lease signed in 1987 granting Gertrude Navarro to construct a home on To Weto. As a descendant of Atlon Calep, Ain Kabua is the proper person to hold and exercise the Alap title and rights, and likewise, Bojean Lorak was the proper person to succeed Senior Dri-Jerbal Akki Laruon. The TRC further held that under Marshallese custom, Jimton “Jimmy” Philippo, as manmaronron for Neimon Philippo, did not have authority to take possession of the two homes built by Gertrude Navarro on To Weto.
• Clanary v Zedkaia, CA 2017-00026 (05/07/18) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the rights and titles of Iroijedrik, Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal for Mwonworwor Weto in Delap, Majuro Atoll. This case involved questions related to the extent to which a person exercising these 3 titles is authorized in removing three families from Mwonworwor Weto under customary law and traditional practice. The TRC held that Plaintiff Clanry, as Iroijedrik, Alap and Senior Dri-Jerbal of Mwonworwor Weto had no authority to remove all three families from their homes without consulting with the Iroijlaplap. The TRC further held that the Iroijlaplap had authority under custom to withhold lease payments from the Plaintiff for not heeding the Iroijlaplap’s advice to place the three families back in their homes.
• Latdrik v Laik, CA 2006-00101 (05/03/18) [Marshallese] [English].

This is a dispute over the rights and titles of Iroijedrik and Alap on Mwejelok Weto in Delap, Majuro Atoll. The TRC held that Plaintiff Batle Latdrik was the proper person to hold and exercise the rights and title of Alap as a descendant of Libollan. Mwejelok Weto, the TRC concluded, was a imon ninnin from Lakejon, a.k.a. Kejon, to his three children, Anjo, Laninbit, and Libollan. As the only female child of Kejon, Libollan established a new bwij line and her descendants would inherit the Alap rights and title. As to the question of who the proper person was to hold and exercise the Iroijedrik rights and title, the TRC held that there was no Iroijedrik for Mwejelok Weto as the Plaintiff provided insufficient evidence indicating he had royal blood. The TRC also found there was no Iroij in Kelet in Iroijlaplap Kaiboke Tobinwa’s domain.

• Tibon v. Molik v. deBrum (1), CA 03-122 (02/26/18) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the rights and titles of Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal for Teron Weto in Rita, Majuro Atoll. The TRC held that Carmen Samson, represented by Defendant Debrum, was the proper person to hold and exercise the Alap rights and title. As to the Senior Dri-Jerbal rights and title, the TRC held that Leslie Tibon, represented by Plaintiff Tibon, was the proper person to hold and exercise those rights and title as a patrilineal descendant of Lijuiep who had remained on Teron Weto. The TRC further held that there was insufficient evidence to support the Plaintiff’s claim that Teron Weto was a gift land.
• Laninjim v Solomon, CA 2016-00172 (01/09/18) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the rights and title of Iroijlaplap for the southern side of Mejit Island, Mejit Tu-rok. Although the bwij became extinct after Lanjo, the TRC held that a new bwij line began with Emle, Defendant Solomon’s mother. The TRC found that the line of succession began with the younger brother of the two sons of Leroij Libet, Drekwojkwoj. It then continued with Taklur, then to Lakiwa, Laninbwij, liTakinej, Lanjo, Wame and Emle, the Defendant’s mother. Therefore, the TRC held that the proper person to hold and exercise the Iroijlaplap rights and title for Mejit Tu-rok is Defendant Rakinmeto Solomon.

2017

• Yamamura v. Binejal, CA 2012-00077 (12/22/17) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the rights and title of Alap for Ekrub Atoll and whether the disputed lands are bwij or botoktok lands. The TRC held that the lands in dispute were bwij lands and thus, Plaintiff Hiroshi V. Yamamura, a descendant of Mejjit and Carmen (matrilineal line) and manmaronron for his older living sister, was the proper person to hold and exercise the rights and title of Alap.
• Anmontha and Domnic v. Melkai, CA 2002-00307 (08/01/17) [Marshallese]  [English]. This is a dispute over the Senior Dri Jerbal rights and title for Erlap Weto, Erlap-iar and Erlap-Loeio or Tulik Erlap in Laura, Majuro Atoll. The TRC found the customs of jibakwe, morjinkot, and imon kalotlot applied to the plaintiff Domnick’s dealings with the landowners who transferred the Senior Dri Jerbal rights for the disputed lands except Erlap-tulik, which remained with the family of defendant Melkai.

2016

• Kabua v. Malolo, CA 2012-00190 (12/19/16) [Marshallese][English]. This is a dispute over the rights and titles of Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal for several islets and wetos on Kwajalein Atoll. The disputed land parcels are: Kuror, Enejore, Jakroot, Boken, Bokram, and Wonwot and the successor of Alap Laji Taft. The TRC held that Defendant Mwejen Malolo was the proper person to succeed Alap Laji Taft as Alap of wetos/islets as a bwij descendant of Litawe while Plaintiff Cecillie Kabua, a descendant of Lelet, Libonlok’s brother, may hold and exercise the Senior Dri-Jerbal rights and title.
• Langidrik v. Dolar, et al., CA 2005-00241 (10/03/16) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the rights and title of Alap on Kabokbok and Mokiep wetos in Ailinglaplap Atoll. The TRC held that Plaintiff Langidrik was the proper person to hold and exercise the Alap rights and title as the two wetos are bwij land.
• Bungitak v. Jowells, et al., CA 2010-00177 (09/29/16) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the Senior Dri Jerbal rights and title on Konan Weto in Rita, Majuro Atoll and the validity of a land use agreement, a lease, that was signed and executed in July 1, 1973. The validity of the lease arose because Senior Dri-Jerbal on the land, Lijela, was purportedly not the proper one as claimed by Defendant Jowells. The TRC, however, held and confirmed that Lijela was the proper person to hold and exercise the Senior Dri-Jerbal rights and title on Konan Weto and had full authority to sign the lease along with Iroij Mo Jitiam and Alap Lanilobet. The TRC further held that as Lakuban Bungitak’s son, the Plaintiff, was the proper person to benefit from his father’s estate which included the lease made on July 1, 1973.
• Ishiguro v. Jinuna (supplemental), CA 2012-00212 (09/29/16) [Marshallese] [English]. In this subsequent hearing regarding the initial questions referred to the TRC, it was once again held that Defendant Jinuna was not the Senior Dri-Jerbal of Jienbel Weto at the relevant times in this case. The TRC further reiterated its previous answers and opinion for the remaining questions restated. The TRC found that under Marshallese custom, the proper remedy in this case was for the Defendant to seek forgiveness from the Alap and owner of the house and that any monetary compensation ought to be resolved between the parties with the custom of lale dron im jela nae dron in mind.
• Ishiguro v. Jinuna, CA 2012-00212 (07/06/16) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the Senior Dri Jerbal rights and title on Jienbel Weto in Laura, Majuro Atoll. The Defendant demolished a house purported to be the Plaintiff’s home with her deceased husband and for which the Defendant claimed was abandoned and forthwith does not belong to the Plaintiff. As the Senior Dri-Jerbal for the weto, it was his customary duty and responsibility to tear it down. After tearing it down, the Defendant had proceeded to build a house, a pool hall and a laundromat on that site. The TRC found and held, however, that Defendant Jinuna was not the Senior Dri-Jerbal for Jienbel Weto in Laura, Majuro Atoll. The TRC also held that Defendant Jinuna was in line to be the Senior Dri-Jerbal for the weto in question and not the current one. Thus, he had no authority to tear down the house without expressed approval from the Alap of Jienbel Weto according to Marshallese custom.
• Myazoe, et al. v. Aelon Kemman, LLC, et al. v Ueno and Estate of Muller, CA 2011—19 (03/17/16) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the rights and titles of Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal for Kemman Island, Majuro Atoll. It involves multiple parties where the TRC was asked the following questions: 1. Who was the proper person to hold the Alap title on Kemman Island in Majuro Atoll during the time the lease was signed? 2. Who was the proper person to hold the Senior Dri-Jerbal title for Kemman Island during the signing of the lease? 3. Is Kemman Island a bwij land? 4. Can an Alap lose his/her land titles because of aging and senility? 5. Can a bwij land be given away without the consent of the whole bwij? 6. Can an adopted child inherit land rights when members of the bwij are still alive?
  The TRC held and determined that Plaintiff Helena Myazoe was the proper person to hold and exercise the Alap rights and title on and over Kemman Island, Majuro Atoll and that her old age and purported senility do not divest her of her Alap title and rights. The TRC also held that Plaintiff Lawrence Kumtak was the proper person to hold and exercise the rights and title of Senior Dri-Jerbal on and over Kemman Islands, Majuro Atoll, and that Kemman Island is a bwij land according to the menmenbwij and therefore, gifting it away requires consent of the whole bwij. Furthermore, the TRC held that an adopted child may inherit land rights even when members of the bwij are still alive if they do not oppose it.
• Aini v. Benjamin, et al., CA 2012-00228 (03/07/16) [Marshallese] [English].

This is a dispute over the rights and title of Alap for Wojenetao Weto in Woja, Majuro Atoll. The defendant Benjamin constructed a house on the land without the expressed approval of the plaintiff stating that he obtained the permission of the plaintiff’s younger brother, who is her manmaronron, and from the current Iroijedrik, Alden Nemna. The TRC held and confirmed that plaintiff Emile Aini was the proper person to hold and exercise the Alap rights and title and that defendant Tenson Benjamin was a Dri-Jerbal on the weto as a patrilineal descendant. However, he was still required to inform the plaintiff, as alap, of his intention to construct a house on the land and not to proceed without it irrespective of obtaining her brother and Iroij Nemna’s approval. On a related matter, the TRC also held that an Alap has the authority to remove a person from the land where there is just cause under the custom.

• Ueno v Lajar, et al., CA 2002-00008 (03/04/16) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the Iroijedrik, Alap and Senior Dri-Jerbal rights and titles over Teron Weto in Rita, Majuro Atoll, and who held these rights in September 4, 1992? The TRC found that with regards to the Iroijedrik title was held by Joab Jake. His adopted children are the beneficiaries of his shares, including monetary compensations on, amongst other lands, Teron Weto, as previously held in CA 1990-170. However, the TRC made no explicit determination on a successor for the Iroijedrik title. The TRC, however, deferred to Civil Action No. 2005-077 and the High Court’s decision therein in their discussion of the Iroijedrik title.

2015

• Kumar v. Kojar, et al., CA 2006-00041 (12/10/15) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the rights and title of Senior Dri Jerbal for Milbar Weto in Rairok, Majuro Atoll. The TRC found that the previous Senior Dri Jerbal, Millie Leviticus, was granted the title by Alap Liwele Jorene which was endorsed by Iroijlaplap Joba Kabua. Camilla Tarkwon, who is Millie’s daughter and successor-in-interest, was declared the proper person to hold and exercise the rights and title of Senior Dri-Jerbal on Milbar Weto in Rairok, Majuro Atoll.
• Silk and Capelle v. Jortak and Ogawa, CA 2009-00191 (11/24/15) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the Alap and Senior Dri-Jerbal rights and titles on Watuwelon Weto in Jabo Island, Arno Atoll. The TRC held that the parties’ menmenbwij, although different, depicts a common name, Aelonin. The TRC found the menmenbwij’s common name, Aelonin, showed the eldest female, Likojene, was plaintiff Isabella Silk’s grandmother. Additionally, the defendant Ogawa, the TRC found, was the blood descendant of Laieb, the younger brother of Likojene. As such, the TRC held Isabela Silk was the proper person to hold and exercise the Alap rights and title and Moneo Ogawa, the proper person to hold and exercise the Senior Dri-Jerbal rights and title.
• Peterson v. Adding, CA 2012-00185 (08/28/15) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal rights and titles for Kirankan Weto, Arno Atoll. The TRC held that according to Marshallese custom, Hermon Peterson was the proper person to hold and exercise both the Alap and Senior Dri-Jerbal titles and rights because the Defendant’s ancestress, Linjir had no authority to devolve the land to her husband, Lalbijet. The TRC found no evidence that attested to and/or approved the customary transfer of the weto to Lalbijet. So, it held that because her older brother, Leben, had children, the rights must properly pass on to and be held by Leben’s descendants in whom Hermon Peterson is one.
• Jeppa v Jeur, et al., CA 2008-00008 (08/21/15) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the Iroijedrik rights and title for Biken Island, Aur Atoll. The TRC held that based on the testimonial and documentary evidence submitted by the parties, the proper person to hold and exercise the rights and title of Iroijedrik on Biken Island, Aur Atoll was Plaintiff Wanmej Jeppa.
• Lejjena v Langijota, CA 2007-00057 (06/03/15) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the Alap rights and title for Eru Island, Kwajalein Atoll. The current Iroijlaplap of Eru divested the eldest bwij descendants of their Alap entitlements because of the role Tojiro Lomae had in attempting to unseat Anjua Loeak as Iroijlaplap of Mojen eo an Loeak. The TRC was asked whether, under Marshallese custom, it was proper for Iroijlaplap Anjua Loeak to divest the children of Ane of their right to be Alaps on Eru Island, Kwajalein Atoll. The TRC held that according to Marshallese custom, certain circumstances may give rise to a change in a succession lineage. In the plaintiff’s case, the TRC found the evidence showed that Ane’s older brother, Tojiro Lomae, testified against Iroijlaplap Anjua’s claim to the Iroijlaplap title and attempted to circumvent and prevent him from inheriting his title. When the attempt was unsuccessful – through the Civil Action Case No. 53-77 – the TRC held that under the custom a bwilok, a literal break, in the line of succession consequently resulted and Tojiro Lomae and his sister were therefore “cut-off” from becoming successors-in-interest to the Alap title on Eru Island. The TRC further opined that testimonies offered during Iroijlaplap Anjua Loeak’s trial were equivalent to and would be considered acts of war. Without an apology from Tojiro Lomae, the TRC held that a bwilok had taken effect according to custom, and that the Iroijlaplap’s determination of designating Betry Langijota, the eldest of the younger bwij from Tojiro Lomae’s matrilineal line, as Alap of Eru Island, Kwajalein Atoll, was justified under the custom.

2014

• Sheet and Liviticus v. Langtur, CA 2009-00212 (10/14/14) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the ownership of a house located in Jenebneb Weto in Rairok, Majuro Atoll. The house belonged to the defendant’s husband’s mother, and had been occupied by defendant’s deceased husband and their children. The plaintiffs are the deceased husband’s sisters who are claiming that the house now belongs to them, not the defendant or their brother’s children. This is based on the assertion that the house belonged to their mother, not defendant’s deceased husband. The TRC found in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that the house belonged to Nei Wai Bobo, the Defendant’s deceased mother-in-law, and as such, the inheritance of the house ought to begin with the children and subsequently, grandchildren. Because Defendant Lantur occupied the house with her deceased husband and children from a previous marriage and currently with their own children (Nei Wai Bobo’s grandchildren), the TRC said the Plaintiffs’ rights accordingly, superseded Defendant Lantur’s children’s rights to the home.
• Korok and Korok v. de Brum and SOF, CA 2011-00180 (10/10/14) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over 1 of 11 shares of Senior Dri Jerbal interests and rights for Eru Island, Kwajalein Atoll. The TRC found the testimony and certification of successor determined by the Iroijlaplap, iroijlaplap committee of alaps (Koba Maron), and the Alap of Eru insufficient to establish that Kurma participated in the legal dispute to unseat the current Iroijlaplap as the succeeding Iroijlaplap in the case, Loeak v. Loeak, CA 53-77, which would have resulted in a change in the succession line of Joma. The TRC held that Plaintiff Patrick Korok was the proper person to hold and exercise the rights and title of Senior Dri-Jerbal as the oldest descendant of Kurma and as the older of the two adopted children of Joma.
• Jacob v. Hermios and Kendall, CA 2008-00221 (08/20/14) [Marshallese] [English]. Following the TRC’s initial determination which recognized defendant Kendall as the Alap over 25 wetos on Erkub and Wotje, the High Court referred three supplemental questions for the TRC to clarify: 1. Did the TRC take into consideration Plaintiff Exhibit D? and 2. Is Wilfred Kendal adopted or is he a natural child of Kendall Lokon?; and 3. Who is the proper person between Bob Meleran Jacob and Wilfred Kendal to hold Alap title over wetos on Wotje and Erkub Atolls as listed in this case? The TRC confirmed they did not consider Plaintiff Exhibit D because witnesses lacked knowledge and information about it. It held that had it considered it, it would only have affirmed the decision that Wilfred was Kendall’s kanin-lujen son (from the womb). The TRC clarified and distinguished this type of adoption from that described in the cases of Loeak v. Loeak and Amon v. Makroro. The latter two cases described the adoptions under question as mere adoptions, unlike Wilfred’s kanin-lujen. The TRC further affirmed their prior decision which recognized Wilfred Kendall as the proper person to hold and exercise the Alap title as Kendall Lojen’s successor-in-interest.
• RMI v. Nack, Sears, and Kobeney, CA 2012-00045 (07/18/14) [Marshallese] [English].This is a dispute over the Senior Dri Jerbal rights and title on Murle Island, Kwajalein Atoll. The TRC found that Murle Island was an imon bwij according to the genealogy charts, menmenbwij, submitted by the parties and confirmed by their testimony. Defendant Sears Kobeney, the TRC held, was the proper person to hold and exercise the Senior Dri-Jerbal title as a descendant of the bloodline (patrilineal) and the surviving child of Jomakro, the eldest child (male) of the progenitor ancestress of the parties, Limaju.
• Lorennij and Enoch v Enoch, CA 2010-00182 (04/14/14) [Marshallese] [English].This case involved a land dispute over the Alap and Senior Dri-Jerbal rights and titles on Unej Weto in Laura, Majuro Atoll. As a Imon Kalotlot given to Tarkeim Enoch, the TRC held that Unej Weto was converted into an Imon Bwij when Tarkeim Enoch became the Alap and Senior Dri-Jerbal following the death of the landowners. As a jidrak in bwij or progenitor for a matrilineal line on the weto, Tarkeim Enoch’s succession line ought to begin with her children, unless a change from the lineage was justified or valid under the custom. The TRC found no valid reason or evidence that would justify Alap Tarkeim Enoch’s decision to transfer both titles of Alap and Senior Dri-Jerbal to her plaintiff granddaughters, which would ultimately divest her own children of their inheritance. The kalimur that Alap Tarkeim Enoch made for the Plaintiffs did not specify any reasons as to why Tarkeim Enoch left the land to the Plaintiffs and so, the TRC held that the proper person to hold and exercise the rights and titles of Alap and Senior Dri-Jerbal on and over Unej Weto was Hilla Enoch, Tarkeim’s eldest child.

2013

• Tibon v. Chutaro and Mela, CA 2006-00138 (09/25/13) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the Senior Dri Jerbal rights and title for Bokanbotin Island, Majuro Atoll, a bwij land. The TRC held that Leslie Tibon, not Robbie Chutaro, was the proper successor of those rights and title as the eldest surviving person amongst the grandchildren of Tibon, a patrilineal descendant.

2012

• Jacob v. Hermius and Kendall, CA 2008-00221 (07/05/12) [Marshallese] [English].This is a dispute over the Alap rights and title over twenty-five wetos on Wotje and Erkup, Wotje Atoll. The TRC held that Defendant Wilfred Kendall, a kanin lujen, was from the older generation whereas the Plaintiff was a generation younger based on the menmenbwij of both parties. The TRC held that Kendall was also the last of his generation and declared by Iroijlaplap Remios Hermios as the Alap. This, the TRC found, took precedence over the Plaintiff’s claim which states defendant Wilfred Kendall was an adopted child and so his rights are subordinate to the Plaintiff’s. The TRC disagreed.

2011

• Mack v. Robert, et al., CA 2005-00127 & 2007-00217 (Consolidated) (06/17/11) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal rights and titles on the western end of Eneloklap Island and on Kinnini Weto, Arno Atoll. Evidence from the TTPI case, CA 45/54 recognized plaintiff Mack’s mother as Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal of the western end of Eneloklap Island. So, the TRC held that Plaintiff Katip Mack is the proper person to succeed his mother as the new Alap and Senior Dri-Jerbal for the western end of Eneloklap Island. In contrast, the arrangement made through a kalimur for Kinnini Weto was found to be invalid. Through the use of the menmenbwij, the TRC found the normal line of succession rule revealed Irene Bunglick was the proper person to hold and exercise the Alap and Senior Dri-Jerbal rights and titles on Kinnini Weto, Arno Atoll.

2008

• Peter v. Napking, et al., CA 2006-00163 (09/16/08) [Marshallese] [English].This is a dispute over a portion of Barkan Weto in Uliga, which the plaintiff claimed is called Jira Weto instead. The evidence established that the disputed land parcel is called Barkan Weto, not Jira Weto as alleged by the plaintiff. The TRC held plaintiff Rosa Peter must adhere to the Defendant landowners’ notices and give due regard and respect them as required under the custom. The TRC further said that if she did not adhere to the Alap and Senior Dri-Jerbal’s notices and directives concerning community meetings and tributes, the landowners are within their customary authority to remove her from the land.
• DeBrum v. Maun, et al., CA 2007-00029 (04/28/08) [Marshallese] [English]; supplemental decision (80/13/08) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the Dri Jerbal rights and title over a portion of Kiniloke Weto in Rairok, Majuro Atoll. The TRC held that Plaintiff Fred Debrum was granted the rights and title thereof according to the customary arrangement made by Leroij Kalora Zion and Alap Lejka Mack. The arrangement granted the lagoon side of Kiniloke Weto to Plaintiff Fred Debrum, and the TRC said that although Alap Lejka Mack held both titles of alap and dri-jerbal, and that his children currently held and exercised the Dri-Jerbal title on several other land parcels through him, that the validity of the arrangement granting the lagoon side to Plaintiff Fred Debrum was a valid arrangement and still in effect.
• Latdrik v. Jane’s Corporation Inc., CA 2006-00101 (01/04/08) [Marshallese] [English]. This case involved a dispute over the rights and titles of Alap and Dri-Jerbal for Mejelok Weto in Delap, Majuro Atoll. The TRC held that, as a ninnin land, Defendant Raymond Latrik was the proper person to hold and exercise both titles according to custom. The TRC further held that the title of Iroijedrik was divested from Lokejon by Iroij Aisea David. Additionally, since Iroij Jurelang Zedkaia was in line to be an Iroijlaplap, he cannot simultaneously hold the Iroijedrik title for Mwejelok. And in order for Raymond Latrik to hold the title of Iroijedrik, the TRC held that he needed to have iroij blood which he did not. The TRC further held that is a customary for none to succeed to the Iroijedrik title for Mwejelok Weto.

2007

• Dribo v. Bondrik and Edmond, CA 2002-00067 (12/13/07) [Marshallese] [English].This is a dispute over the Alap rights and title on multiple land parcels and islands on Kwajalein Atoll and Lae Atoll. The TRC held that Stephen Dribo was the proper person to hold and exercise the rights and title of Alap on and over lands that were previously held by his father, Handle Dribo. As a toor-in-botoktok, the TRC held he was the proper person to hold and exercise the Alap title for all the land parcels and islands on Kwajalein Atoll and Lae Atoll, except Monbon Rear on Kwajalein Island as it belonged to Langrine, Defendant Bondrik’s grandfather.
• Juda v. Heseiha, CA 2000-00025 (05/09/07) [Marshallese] [English]; supplemental decision (04/11/08) [English].This is a dispute over the Senior Dri Jerbal rights and title on Monunnar Weto, Bikini Atoll. The TRC held that Lucky Juda was the proper person to hold and exercise the Senior Dri-Jerbal title and rights on Monunnar Weto, Bikini Atoll, and that Kili Island is a public land and has no land payment connection to Bikini Atoll. Thus, the people of Bikini who reside on Kili Island, do so in peace and security on a public land and not as landowners.

2006

• Sheldon and Nashion v. Enos and Jacklick, CA 2003-00197 (08/22/06) [Marshallese] [English]. This case involved a land dispute over the Alap and Dri-Jerbal rights and titles on and over Lokitak Weto in Jabwor, Jaluit Atoll. The TRC held that Ann Shelton was the proper person to hold and exercise the Alap rights and title, and Tabwi Nashion was the proper person to hold and exercise the rights and Dri-Jerbal title. The TRC’s determination was based on the decision made by Iroijlaplap Kabua Kabua during a meeting in which he informed all his Alaps who were present at the funeral/burial of his adopted brother, Maida Kabua, that the new Alaps for Lokitak Weto were Alling T. Elmo as Alap and Yoshimi Nashion as Dri-Jerbal. The Defendants’ predecessors were present and ought to have objected or discussed the matter with Iroijlaplap Kabua Kabua, but decided to wait until he passed away. Leroij Neimata Nakamura, the current Iroijlaplap for Lokitak Weto, issued a determination that named the defendants as successors but soon rescinded that determination through her daughter, Neimat Nakamura Reimers. It was held that the decision made by the previous Iroijlaplap should be upheld by his successor as part of the custom.
• Nuka v. Morelik, et al., CA 2005-00078 (07/18/06) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the rights and title of Dri-Jerbal for Tolen Ralik, Kieo, and Ennylebegan (Carlos), Kwajalein Atoll. The TRC held that Toshiko Nuka was the proper person to succeed her older brother, Kera Nuka, in whom the Defendants had previously no issue with as the Dri-Jerbal. As with Kera Nuka, the TRC held that by virtue of his lineage as a toor-in-botoktok from his father and grandfather, Bulele, Toshiko Nuka too was entitled to the Dri-Jerbal title. The Defendants were in the bwij line and stood to succeed as Alaps.
• Thomas v. Samson v. Alik, CA 2000-00184 (03/17/06) [Marshallese] [English].This is a dispute over the Alap and Dri-Jerbal rights and titles for Lorilejman Weto in Arrak, Majuro Atoll. The TRC held that in protecting the custom, it will retain what was determined by the previous Iroijlaplap in the Land Determination of Lorilejman Weto and recognize plaintiff Jarling Thomas as the proper person to hold and exercise those rights and titles. The TRC found that Lorilejman Weto could not be a katleb to both Samson and Bokmej from Iroijlaplap Lainlen for sailing his tibnil because first, katlep is for only one person, and second, katlep is a customary reward for deeds done on land, not at sea. Kodaelem, Dijoto and Junmeto are examples of awards given for deeds done while navigating a Iroij canoe. Ultimately, there was insufficient evidence to support the claim that Loriejlman Weto was a Morojinkot reward for bravery, or provide an explanation as to why none of Samson’s or Alik’s descendants resided on the weto in question but only Bokmej and his family. The TRC further reasoned that to change arrangements made by the previous Iroijlaplaps would be a violation of the custom of “jab kamakit drekein jinme eo” and so the current Iroijlaplap ought to “protect the custom and ‘never move or disturb’ the drekein jenme.”
• Bank of the Marshall Islands v. Jennet and Jennet, CA 2004-00153 (01/12/06) [Marshallese] [English].This is a dispute over the Alap rights and title for Monkono Weto in Delap, Majuro Atoll. The TRC held that Defendant Joria Jennet was the proper person to hold and exercise the Alap rights and title and that his actions and/or inactions were insufficient to justify a deviation or change in the succession line so that his younger brother, Defendant Tior Jennet, would become Alap in his place. The dispute stems from Leroij Atama Zedkaia’s recognition of the younger brother as the Alap of the land in dispute because Defendant Joria Jennet had offended and committed a customary wrong against her. The TRC held, however, that custom requires that the offense be so egregious as to warrant cutting off Defendant Joria from his Alap interests. The TRC rejected the claim that the customary wrong was egregious so as to devolve Defendant Joria Jennet’s alap interests to his younger brother.

2005

• Mawilong v. Langinbit, et al., CA 2005-00096 (11/04/05) [Marshallese] [English].This case involved a land dispute over the rights and titles of Iroijedrik, Alap and Dri-Jerbal for Bokatilkan Weto in Ajeltake, Majuro Atoll. The Court held that Plaintiff Rhoda Mawilong, according to the menmenbwij, showed she was a child of the eldest bwij and therefore the proper person to hold and exercise all three titles. The Court further held that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of proof, and failed to satisfy the Court in substantiating their claims that the land in question was bequeathed to them as an imon kalotlot.
• Lokboj and Lokkon v. Rowa and Bondrik, CA 2003-00014 (04/14/05) [Marshallese] [English]. This case involved Alap and Dri Jerbal rights and titles on multiple land parcels on Roi-Namur (8) and Kwajalein Atoll (2). The main issue before the TRC was whether a female can hold and exercise the titles and rights of an Alap and Dri-Jerbal under custom. The Panel discussed the custom and concepts of jined ilo kobo, manmaronron, and menmenbwij and held that a manmaronron can only be designated by an elder sister(s) in the bwij and that a menmenbwij shows the succession line in a family lineage and should thereby determine who the proper person is to hold and exercise the Alap and Dri-Jerbal titles, regardless of whether that person is a male or female. In making their determination, the TRC Panel said that according to the custom and the evidence: 1. Julie Lokboj was the alab for Akadrikien, Kamarre, Lau, Lodrenaj, Muinluial, Tuakan and Mojelar in Roi-Namur, and Nukne Island, Kwajalein Atoll; 2. Irumne Bondrik was the lab for Aronuij Weto, Roi-Namur, and Oble Island, Kwajalein Atoll; 3. Elsie Lokkon was the dri-jerbal for all of these lands, Akadrikien, Kamarre, Lau, Lodrenaj, Muinluial, Tuakan and Monjelar in Roi-Namur, and Nukne Island, Kwajalein Atoll. In addition, she was also the dri-jerbal for Aronuij Weto, Roi-Namur, and Oble Island, Kwajalein Atoll; and 4. Lane Rowa was neither the alab nor the dri-jerbal for any of the above listed lands. He is in the alab line of succession and will one day hold the title. He has to wait for his turn.

2004

• Laiot v. Laibwij, et al., CA 1996-00161 (10/12/04) [Marshallese] [English].
  This case involved a dispute over the Alap and Dri-Jerbal rights and titles on Mwetejek Weto in Laura, Majuro Atoll. The TRC held that Aneja Laibwij was the proper person to hold and exercise the Alap rights and title, and that as part of the Mwetejek Weto family lineage, it was not proper for the land to be a katlep to another member of the same family lineage. The TRC found that a will by Linimeto to her grandson (son of her youngest child, Helen Laiot), Lawrence Kumtak, was not proper too, as her will could be used to establish her grandson as the Alap of Mwetejek Weto because the land belonged to the bwij (imon bwij).
• Kelet, et al. v. Lanki and Bien, CA 1996-00201 (09/10/04) [Marshallese] [English].This case involved a dispute over the Dri-Jerbal rights and title on and over Lokejbar Weto in Rairok, Majuro Atoll. The TRC held that as a gift land, Takju Jimi was the proper person to hold and exercise those rights and title. The TRC found that the Alap and Dri-Jerbal titles were conveyed by Namidrik to Limoj who then gifted her best friend, Libarki of Ailuk. To each one, granted the Alap Limoj and dri-jerbal Libarki rights in their own will. Limoj named her adopted son, Ajidrik Bien, in her will and Libarki gifted Takju Jimi in her will. The TRC held that both wills were valid and thus, Ajidrik Bien and his siblings, which included Defendant Peter Bien, would succeed has Alaps; and Takju Jimi and his successors would succeed as holders of the Dri-Jerbal rights and title. Hackney Takju, as Takju Jimi’s sole surviving next-of-kin, was held as the one entitled to succeed as the current Dri-Jerbal on Lokejbar Weto.

2001

• Jeilar, et al. v. Rusin, CA 1998-00288 (06/28/01)[Marshallese] [English].This case involved a dispute over the Iroijerik, Alap and Dri-Jerbal titles and rights on and over Kimor Weto, Majuro Atoll. As the surviving adopted child of Labiliet, Defendant Hattie Rusin was determined to be the proper person to hold and exercise the Alap and Dri-Jerbal rights and titles to Labiliet’s lands. Her will from Labiliet granted her successor rights and titles to all his lands, including the land in dispute. The TRC further said that in order for her to hold and exercise the Iroij rights and titles, however, she must have iroij blood, which she did not.
• MEC v. Erbin, et al., CA 1998-00194, and Langtir and Tibon v. Lani, et al., CA 1998-00044 (06/05/01) [Marshallese] [English].This is a dispute involving the Alap and Dri Jerbal rights and title on Betto Weto in Jabwor, Jaluit Atoll. The TRC found that Betto Weto is an Imon Bwij and as such, Defendant Neimon Erbin (Ertin) was the proper person to hold and exercise the Alap rights and title as a matrilineal descendant; and Defendant Tina Jorkan was the proper person to hold and exercise the Dri-Jerbal rights and titles as a patrilineal descendant.
• Kios v. Kios, CA 1000-00080 (02/12/01) [Marshallese] [English].This is a dispute over the Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal rights and titles over Tobikien Weto on Majuro Atoll. The TRC held that the Plaintiff, Atikol Kios, was the proper person to hold and exercise the Alap rights and title, and Defendant Kolej Kios was the proper person to hold and exercise the Senior Dri-Jerbal rights and title. The Court found that the customs of bedbed ijin bedbed ijen, jined ilo kobo, and lia were applicable in this case to illustrate that a jined ilo kobo mother would not, and cannot, disown her son, and therefore the absence of the older son by a lia (punishment) was pardoned. As brothers of the last Alap, Marshallese custom dictates the oldest living child, if no siblings or cousins of the same generation are alive, would be the succeeding Alap, and likewise, the younger one would succeed as the Senior Dri-Jerbal.

2000

• Samuel v. Lokkar, CA 1999-00229 (07/26/00) [Marshallese] [English]. This case involved a dispute over the Alap and Senior Dri-Jerbal rights and titles on Elekeo-ean weto in Laura. The TRC held that Tiblynn H. Samuel, and not Nejkit K. Lokar, was the proper person to hold and exercise the rights and titles of Alap and Senior Dri-Jerbal because the arrangement made between those in authority – Iroijlaplap Joba Kabua, Iroijerik Libarbar Samuel and Lokoneo Laninran – was valid. The conveyance of the said weto by Lokoneo Laninran – who held both titles – to Henry Samuel was properly approved and therefore, the Marshallese custom of “Kwon Jab Iuiun Dreka In Jinme Eo” (don’t move the bedrock or long-established arrangement) was applied. The TRC held that Henry Samuel had the sole discretion on how to use and disposed of both titles on Elekeo-ean, and since his last kalimur to Tiblynn H. Samuel was approved by Iroijlaplap Amata Kabua, it therefore proper for Tiblynn to succeed as the Alap and Senior Dri-Jerbal over that weto.
• Clarence v. Laukon and Laukon, CA 1099-00302 (08/08/00) [Marshallese] [English]. This case involved a dispute over the Iroijerik title on Tereen Weto in Delap, Majuro Atoll and whether the Plaintiff was divested of that title by Iroijlaplap Amata Kabua because of a “bwilok”. The TRC found no evidence that supported the claim that Iroij Amata Kabua divested Clarence of those rights and held that he, Muna Clarence, was the proper person to hold and exercise the Iroijerik title and rights over Tereen Weto in Delap.
• Jack v. Hisaiah and Hisaiah, CA 1999-00250 (11/16/00) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the rights and title of Alap and Dri Jerbal for Wojalik-ean Weto on Majuro Atoll. The TRC held that Defendants Tokiko Hisaiah and David Hisaiah were the proper persons to hold and exercise the Alap and Dri-Jerbal rights and titles respectively, a land that was purchased by Andrew Hisaiah, Defendant Tokiko’s deceased husband and Plaintiff Ritok’s and Defendant David’s father. The TRC found that the Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3 was not sufficient evidence to deviate and grant exclusive ownership rights over Wojalik Ean weto, but that it was sufficient as a document intended to show that Plaintiff Jack was a landowner of Wojalik Ean for the sole purpose of securing a Farmer’s Home loan. The Court further held that as a child of Andrew Hisaiah, the Plaintiff Jack, along with Andrew Hisaiah’s widow and other children, are all beneficiaries of his properties and to deviate from that under an arrangement that gave Plaintiff Jack exclusive ownership rights would not be proper under the custom, and in fact, would violate the custom.

1998

• Lokar v. Kemoot, CA 1997-00124 (06/25/98) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the Iroijerik rights and title on several wetos on Majuro Atoll. The TRC held that Lanbo Kemoot was the proper person to succeed Neiar Moses as Iroijerik based on the genealogy chart which showed that Lanbo was from the older generation and Kotta was from a younger generation. The Court rejected the Plaintiff’s claims that the succession line continued with each succeeding generation of the eldest female bwij vertically; reasoning that the inheritance pattern would be a departure from the custom, as taught by our ancestors. The TRC also held that Neiar Moses succeeded Taidrik according to Marshallese custom and not as of right granted by Neika.

1997

• Jamomo, et al. v. Jenre, CA 1997-00069 (10/01/97) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the Alap rights and title on Bar Island, Majuro Atoll. The TRC held that Lijelke Jenre was the proper person to hold and exercise the Alap rights and title to Bar Island as the successor of Lajawit who adopted Neikoj and raised her as kanin-lujen. Lajawit had no children and Lijelke not only is Lajawit’s only heir from that adoption, but the iroij of Bar Island, Leroij Chihaya Anmontha, also recognized her as the current Alap and Dri-Jerbal for Bar Island.
• Hermios and Langmos v. RMI v. Tomeing, CA 1994-00011 (04/30/97) [Marshallese] [English]. This case is a dispute involving the rights and titles of Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal for two wetos on Wotje Atoll. In a joint session of the High Court and the Traditional Rights Court, it was determined that the Alap and Dri-Jerbal rights and titles were both held by Iroijlaplap Tomeing. The decision was based on evidence, including Tomeing’s request and subsequent renaming of Weto Ekmouj and the purchase of Monaktal Weto. Additional factors considered included the principle that under Marshallese custom, if an Iroijlaplap is physically clearing and working on a parcel of land or weto, the land rights would exclusively be owned by the Iroijlaplap and his children. Following customary principles, the TRC determined that Weto Telnan (previously named Weto Ekmouj) and Weto Monaktal should be restored to the ownership of Litokwa Tomeing and his siblings, the children of Iroijlaplap Tomeing and rightful heirs of the Alap and Dri-Jerbal titles and rights.
• Elmo v. Kabua, CA 1996-00175 (04/15/97)[Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the Iroijlaplap, prominent chief, rights and title for the Mojen eo an Laelan. The TRC found that Korab, the plaintiff’s father, was not a natural child of Nellu, the prior Iroijlaplap but an adopted child who was not acknowledged by Nellu. The TRC held that Leroij Neimata N. Kabua was the proper person to hold and exercise the rights and title of Iroijlaplap for Mojen eo an Laelan. The TRC Panel recommended that the defendant, Leroij Neimata N. Kabua, follow/continue to follow the customary practice of distributing her share of land lease payments to those entitled, similar to how the late Iroijlablab Kabua Kabua practiced with Korab.

1992

• Mack v. Lininmeto and Edwards, CA 1990-00053 (10/19/92) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute involving the alap rights and title on Jebeten Weto in Enemanit Island, Majuro Atoll. Jekdron Mack was held as the proper person to hold and exercise the alab rights and title. The TRC found that Jekdron was the successor to the last person who held Litabwinwa’s bwij right, a right that belonged to the Riluwut jowi or clan. Jekdron, as the child of a female, Lukelan, was a bwij descendant under the new jowi named Raej, and a direct descendant of alap lineage under Marshallese custom. The TRC rejected the defendant’s testimony that Litabwinwa had given alab and dri jerbal rights to Albert and Binot because there was no bwij approval, emphasizing the need for approval in Marshallese custom. The TRC found Litabwinwa’s katleb of the dri jerbal rights and title to Albert and Binot valid. Lininmeto, as Binot’s daughter, is therefore the proper person to hold and exercise the dri jerbal rights and title.
• Piamon v. Bulele and Lantur, CA 1988-00146 (04/09/92)[Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the rights and title of Alap on Kwajalein Atoll. After considering all testimonies and evidence in this case, the court concluded that Billy Piamon is the proper person to hold and exercise the rights and title of alap under Marshallese custom. The court rejected the idea that a division of Erojja lands occurred and interpreted the term bedbed-ijin bedbed-ijen as not applicable to the Kwajalein Erojja lands. The court clarified that the saying bedbed ijin bedbed ijen, na wot kwe applies only between similar categories, such as bwij to bwij or botoktok to botoktok. Regarding testimony about an ire in mejen ninnin, the court suggested that even if such an arrangement occurred, it should not be considered permanent. The TRC emphasized a specific arrangement after Bulele’s death, indicating Binni as the proper successor based on genealogy charts and the inheritance of Erojja lands. In addressing Jillo’s claim and the evidence presented, the TRC found discrepancies in the statements offered about the preparation of documents and the dates of the signatures. The evidence establishes that Billy Piamon is the proper person to hold and exercise the alab title and rights under custom.

1990

• Abija v. Bwijmaron, CA 1989-00022 (09/01/90) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute involving alap and senior dri jerbal rights and titles on four wetos, two of which are located in Laura – Elelwe and Okok – and the other two – Drennar and Lokonmok – in Rita, Majuro Atoll. The TRC, in a joint hearing with the High Court, found no evidence supporting the claim that a division of the four wetos occurred between the families. Testimony lacked consistency and the documentary evidence did not clearly support the defendant’s claim. The TRC emphasized the importance of Iroij Loton’s testimony and rejected the reliance on the judgment in Civil Action No. 226. The TRC concluded that any division, if it occurred, was inconsistent with custom, as not all concerned parties approved it. The TRC affirmed the truth of the custom and the bwij line of succession and Emle was acknowledged as David’s daughter. While acknowledging good practices under custom and land law, the TRC held that these principles were not applicable in this case because no division occurred. Meria Abija was confirmed as the rightful alab of Elelwe weto based on custom and genealogy charts, and as the rightful Senior Dri Jerbal based on premise the she was not only the eldest surviving child of the senior bwij, but also the last. Ultimately, Meria was determined as the proper person to hold and exercise both the alap and senior dri jerbal rights and titles.

1988

• Majuwi v. Lomore and Jorauir, CA 1987-00021 (04/05/88) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the rights and titles of Alap and Senior Dri Jerbal on Balube, Monkanon and other wetos on Utrik Atoll. The TRC held that when the older bwij becomes extinct (meaning all members of the female lineage are deceased), the younger bwij will then succeed to the Alap rights and title. The decision was based on the menmenbwij presented by the parties. The TRC held that even if the older bwij lived on Ailuk Atoll for many years, and in the absence of an agreement from the Iroijlaplap Lobareo at that time, the succession line must continue through the older bwij until such a time as when it becomes extinct, then it will pass on to the younger bwij as dictated by custom.

1986

• Kalemem v. Mwejenwa, CA 1982-00010 (06/20/86) [Marshallese] [English]. This is a dispute over the Alap rights and title on Woneo Weto in Arno Atoll. The TRC held the Plaintiff, Neian Kalemen, was the proper person to hold and exercise the Alap rights and title in accordance with the Marshallese custom of Imon Kalotlot. The Court found that the arrangement made by Alap Mannana and Iroijlaplap Leben, which designated the rights and title to the plaintiff, took precedence over the defendant’s reliance on the custom of Kanin Lujen. The court also found no evidence supported the claim of severance of adoptive rights from the defendant and thereby opined that the defendant is not restricted from supporting and working alongside the plaintiff as the Alap. The plaintiff’s actions, which aligned with the customs of ukot boka eo, mejed kabilok kij, eonodre jokla eo, imon aje, imon kalotlot, and amen aka eo, contributed to establishing and securing her rightful claim. The court emphasized the term lia and encouraged the defendant to work for the plaintiff without further restraint.