## Facts

- William Kalipi, a descendant of native Hawaiians, sought to enter certain privately and publicly owned lands in the ahupuaʻa of ʻŌhia and Manawai on Molokaʻi to gather natural products for traditional practices.
- The lands included largely undeveloped ranch and hunting acreage in Manawai and both state-owned and privately owned undeveloped acreage in ʻŌhia.
- Kalipi owned a taro patch in Manawai and an adjoining houselot in East ʻŌhia, where he had lived periodically until 1975.
- At the time of trial, Kalipi lived with his family in the nearby ahupuaʻa of Keawenui, not in ʻŌhia or Manawai.
- Kalipi claimed his family traditionally traversed these lands to gather items such as ti leaf, bamboo, kukui nuts, kiawe, and medicinal herbs and ferns.
- Private landowners refused to provide Kalipi unrestricted access, and he sued to establish and protect an asserted gathering right.
- A jury returned a special verdict finding Kalipi had no such right; Kalipi appealed, alleging instructional and trial errors.

## Issues

1. Whether, and to what extent, Hawaiʻi law preserves customary and traditional gathering rights of descendants of native Hawaiians on privately owned lands within an ahupuaʻa.
2. Whether HRS § 7-1 grants gathering rights to a person who owns land in an ahupuaʻa but does not reside there.
3. Whether customary rights recognized through HRS § 1-1 (and the constitutional duty to protect traditional practices) support a right of access to gather on others’ lands under these facts.

## Decision

- The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for defendants.
- The court held HRS § 7-1 preserves only limited gathering rights for “lawful occupants,” defined as residents of the ahupuaʻa where the rights are asserted.
- The court limited statutory gathering rights to (i) undeveloped lands within the ahupuaʻa, (ii) the items enumerated in HRS § 7-1, and (iii) use connected to practicing native Hawaiian customs and traditions.
- The court recognized that customary rights may persist under HRS § 1-1 when continued in practice and causing no actual harm to others’ recognized interests, but treated such rights as narrow and compatible with modern property interests.
- Because Kalipi did not reside in ʻŌhia or Manawai at the relevant time, he did not qualify to exercise preserved statutory or customary gathering rights there.
- The court found no reversible error in the challenged jury instructions or trial conduct.

## Legal Principles

- Hawaiʻi courts have a constitutional obligation to preserve and enforce traditional and customary rights of descendants of native Hawaiians, consistent with property rights and noninterference with others.
- Under HRS § 7-1, gathering rights are preserved only for “lawful occupants” of an ahupuaʻa, meaning persons residing within that ahupuaʻa, not persons who merely own property there.
- Statutory gathering rights under HRS § 7-1 are limited to the statute’s enumerated items and may be exercised only on undeveloped lands within the relevant ahupuaʻa.
- Exercising HRS § 7-1 rights must be for the purpose of practicing native Hawaiian customs and traditions, not for a general right of access.
- Under HRS § 1-1, customary rights may continue if ancient practices persist and cause no actual harm to others’ recognized interests, but such rights are constrained and fact-dependent.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a defense verdict, holding that preserved native Hawaiian gathering rights are limited and generally require actual residence in the ahupuaʻa, exercise on undeveloped land, collection of statutorily enumerated items, and a connection to traditional practices; a nonresident owner could not compel access to others’ lands for gathering on these facts.


Kalipi v. Hawaiian Tr. Co., 66 Haw. 1, 656 P.2d 745 (Haw. 1982)