CHUUK STATE SUPREME COURT
TRIAL DIVISION

Cite as Songeni v. Fanapanges Municipality
10 FSM Intrm. 308 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2001)

[10 FSM Intrm. 308]

ETIS SONGENI, PURTASIO ESEPOM, and
JUAN RAWIT,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

FANAPANGES MUNICIPALITY,
Defendant.

CSSC CA NO. 55-2000

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

Soukichi Fritz
Chief Justice

Hearing:  April 2, 2001
Decided:  April 4, 2001

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiffs:	Ben K. Enlet, trial counselor
P.O. Box 1650
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

For the Defendant:	Maketo Robert, Esq.
Office of the Chuuk Attorney General
P.O. Box 189
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

*    *    *    *

HEADNOTES

Public Officers and Employees ; Chuuk
A person entering upon a public office is generally required to qualify by performing all the steps customarily or legally required to hold the office.  This includes the taking of an oath of office and attendance upon the duties of the office.  Songeni v. Fanapanges Municipality, 10 FSM Intrm. 308, 309 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2001).

Civil Procedure ; Dismissal; Public Officers and Employees ; Chuuk
When the plaintiffs have never qualified for the public office for which they seek compensation, their case will be dismissed.  Songeni v. Fanapanges Municipality, 10 FSM Intrm. 308, 309 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2001).

*    *    *    *

[10 FSM Intrm. 309]

COURT'S OPINION

SOUKICHI FRITZ, Chief Justice:

This case comes before the Court after notice and hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint wherein the Plaintiffs allege that they are the elected members of the Fanapanges Municipal Council, but that they have not received pay due them as such officials.  The Defendant Municipality alleges and argued at the hearing that the refusal to pay the Plaintiffs any compensation is on the grounds that the Plaintiffs have refused to take the oath of office and have refused to attend any of the meetings of the Fanapanges Municipal Council.

The rule is well settled that a person entering upon a public office is generally required to qualify by performing all the steps customarily or legally required to hold the office.  This includes the taking of an oath of office and attendance upon the duties of said office.  See 63A Am. Jur. 2d Public Officers and Employees §§ 127-134 (1984).  In this case none of these steps appear to have been accomplished by the Plaintiffs.  Therefore, the Defendant's motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Plaintiffs have never qualified for the office for which they seek compensation, is due to be granted, and it is so ordered.

*    *    *    *