|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Supreme Court of Palau |
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF PALAU
APPELLATE DIVISION
| LUII’S CHILDREN, Appellant, v. KOROR STATE PUBLIC LANDS AUTHORITY and NGERIBKAL CLAN, Appellees. |
Cite as: 2019 Palau 9
Civil Appeal No. 18-022
Appeal from LC/B Nos. 08-0408, 11-0175, & 11-0176 on remand
Decided: March 14, 2019
Counsel for Appellant Vameline Singeo
Counsel for Appellee KSPLA Michael Watson
Counsel for Appellee Ngeribkal Clan Yukiwo P. Dengokl
BEFORE: ARTHUR NGIRAKLSONG, Chief Justice
JOHN K. RECHUCHER, Associate Justice
R. BARRIE MICHELSEN, Associate Justice
Appeal from the Land Court, the Honorable Salvador Ingereklii, Associate Judge, presiding.
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
[ 1] mand from Ngeribukel ukel Clan v. Ngeribkal Clan, 2017 Palau 33, the Land Court ordered a monumentation of boundaries as part of the implementation of this Court’s mandate.
[; 2] The Land Courtrt’s order to the Director of the Bureau of Lands and Survey included the provision that “[i]n the conduct of such monumentation and survey, the Surveyor shall first locate the outer boundary of Claim 89 and Claim 41, and mak[e] sure that monumentation of the above mentioned TD lots will not encroach into adjacent lots whose ownership have been determined and/or [are] yet to be determined.” Order to Conduct Monumentation and Surv. 2. Appellant objects to the limitations of the monumentation, and appeals.[1]
[ 3] Ngeribkal Clan has argued that this appeal is interlocutory and as such should be dismissed. We agree. A Land Court order to the Director of Lands and Surveyot a final Land Court judgment subject to appeal.
ANALYSIS
[ 4] This Cous long held that that “[a]n order which does not finally settle the issues on trial generally is not appealable, although it is open to review in connectith an appeal of the final judgment.” In re Estate tate of Udui, 3 ROP Intrm. 130, 131 (1992) (citing Palau Envtl. Quality Prot. Bd. v. Ngatpang State, 1 ROP Intrm. 647, 647–48 (1989); Fritz v. Salii, 1 ROP Intrm. 521, 546 (1988); Nakatani v. Shigemitsu, 1 ROP Intrm. 663A, 663C (1988);, EQPB v. Ngatpang State, 1 ROP Intrm. 647 (1989), Fritz v. Salii, 1 ROP Intrm. 521, 546 (1988), Olikong v. Salii, 1 ROP Intrm. 406, 411 (1987)).
[ 5] As hen stated by this Cois Court, repeatedly: “Piecemeal appeals disrupt the trial process, extend the time required to litigacase, and burden appellate courts. It is far better to consolidate all alleged trial court ourt errors in one appeal.” Salii v. Etpison, 18 ROP 41, 43 (2011); (quoting Ngirchechol v. Triple J. Enters., Inc., 11 ROP 58, 60 (2004)); Republic of Palau v. Black Micro Corp., 7 ROP 46, 47 (1998).
[ 6] Although this Cour adoptadopted a collateral order exception to the final judgment rule, which “allows an immediate appeal of an interlocutory order entered during trial thtermines important rights of the parties but that is not reot related to the relevant cause of action,” Black Micro Corp., 7 ROP Intrm. at 47, its scope is limited. Here, the objected-to order is directly related to the underlying case, with no consequence to an erroneous order that cannot be corrected on appeal. It is not “completely separate from the merits of the action and effectively unreviewable on appeal.” Pac. Call Invs., Inc. v. Palau Marine Indus. Corp., 16 ROP 89, 008) (citing g Heirs of Drairoro v. Yangilmau, 10 ROP 116, 118 (2003)).
CONCLUSION
[ 7] We dismiis appeal and rend remand the case for the Land Court to continue its efforts to implement our previous mandate.
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/pw/cases/PWSC/2019/9.html
