Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Palau

  Download original PDF

Orakiblai v Government of the United States of America - Order denying petition for rehearing [2012] PWSC 16; Civil Appeal 11-003 (15 May 2012)

IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF PALAU
APPELLATE DIVISION

CIVIL APPEAL No. 11-003
Civil Case No. 09-251

ORAKIBLAI CLAN, BLIUB CLAN,
SOWEI CLAN, NGERBUUCH CLAN,
OCHEDARUCHEI CLAN, NGEUDEL
CLAN, OKEDERAOL CLAN, BOSAOL
CLAN, SECHEDUI CLAN,
NGERUOSECH CLAN, IBELKUNGEL
CLAN, and UES PEDRO, DEC.,
through her Representative, UCHERBELAU ABEL K. SUZUKI,:
Appellants,

v.

GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and
GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN,
Appellees
___________________________________ :

Decided: 15th day of May, 2012

Counsel for Appellants: Brien Sers Nicholas, Yukiwo P. Dengokl
Counsel for Appellees: William L. Ridpath, Mariano W. Carlos

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

BEFORE: ALEXANDRA F. FOSTER, Associate Justice; KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Part-Time Associate Justice; and HONORA E. REMENGESAU RUDIMCH, Associate Justice Pro Tem.

Appeal from the Trial Division, the Honorable ARTHUR NGIRAKLSONG, Chief Justice, presiding.

PER CURIAM:

This matter comes before the Court on Appellants’ Petition for Rehearing under ROP R. App. P. 40(a). It is well-established that “petitions for rehearing should be granted exceedingly sparingly, and only in those cases where this Court’s original decision obviously and demonstrably contains an error of fact or law that draws into question the result of the appeal.” Melaitau v. Lakobong, 9 ROP 192, 192 (2002) (quoting Superluck Enters., Inc. v. ROP, 7 ROP Intrm. 7, 7 (1998)).
Petitioners argue that because the Court incorporated the January 5, 2011 Opinion and Order issued by Chief Ngiraklsong, the Court “incorporated and compounded the same errors of fact and law made by the Trial Court.” (App. Br. 3.). The Appellate Panel adopted the Trial Division’s decision because in the decision, the trial court accurately and appropriately responded to the issues raised on appeal.

As to the current petition, Petitioners have not demonstrated that the Court overlooked or misapprehended a point of law or fact so as to call into question the result of the appeal.

Accordingly, the Appellants’ Petition for Rehearing is DENIED.

Entered this 15th day of May, 2012.

___________________________________
ALEXANDRA F. FOSTER
Associate Justice

___________________________________
KATHERINE A. MARAMAN
Part-Time Associate Justice

___________________________________
HONORA E. REMENGESAU RUDIMCH
Associate Justice Pro Tem