Our conclusion that the Board of Regents was not required to give specific deliberative consideration to Plaintiff's tenure application does not wholly dispose of Plaintiff's contentions. It is still necessary that we determine, from the record before us, whether the Board of Regents did in fact delegate to the President authority to make the negative decision on Plaintiff's application and to cause the required notice to be given. The trial court did not make the finding with respect to this question required by Rule 52(a), H.R.C.P. However, we may apply "the rule that insufficiency of the findings may be waived by the appellate court if, but only if, the record is so clear that the court does not need the aid of findings." Mayer v. Alexander and Baldwin, Inc., 56 Haw. 195, 206, 532 P.2d 1007, 1010 (1975); Lalakea v. Baker, 43 Haw. 321 (1959); Urbain v. Knapp Brothers Manufacturing Co., 217 F.2d 810 (6th Cir. 1954). We have examined the entire record with care, and have determined that the facts are not significantly in dispute as to this issue.

This court has never directly considered whether a trial court may take judicial notice of the "records and files" in the case before it pursuant to HRE Rule 201, although it has indicated that a trial court may take judicial notice of "the pleadings, findings of fact and conclusions of law" filed in a separate court proceeding.See Fujii v. Osborne, 67 Haw. 322, 329, 687 P.2d 1333, 1338-39 (1984) (citing Lalakea v. Baker, 43 Haw. 321 (1959);McAulton v. Smart, 54 Haw. 488, 510 P.2d 93 (1973)). See also State v. Akana, 68 Haw. 164, 165, 706 P.2d 1300, 1302 (1985) ("This court has validated the practice of taking judicial notice of a court's own records in an interrelated proceeding where the parties are the same."

See Fujii v. Osborne, No. 8898 decided August 27, 1984. It, of course, could not take judicial notice of other matters in the files of the preceding civil case nor of the files in the bankruptcy case. Lalakea v. Baker, 43 Haw. 321 (1959); McAulton v. Smart, 58 Haw. 488, 510 P.2d 93 (1973). Only limited matters from those two files were placed, by certified exhibits, before the circuit court on the motion for summary judgment.

The order obviously was ambiguous and required construction. Appellee did not request the court in Civil No. 69007 to take judicial notice of the pleadings, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and orders in Civil No. 46782, as it could have, pursuant to Rule 201, HRE. See Lalakea v. Baker, 43 Haw. 321 (1959); McAulton v. Smart, 54 Haw. 488, 510 P.2d 93 (1973). If the court below had exercised its discretion to judicially notice those documents under Rule 201(b), HRE, it would have been required to give the parties some indication of that action, so that they could exercise their right to be heard on the judicial notice matter under Rule 201(e), HRE.

In this review we apply the usual rule that a finding will be sustained unless clearly erroneous, also the rule that insufficiency of the findings may be waived by the appellate court if, but only if, the record is so clear that the court does not need the aid of findings. Lalakea v. Baker, 43 Haw. 321, 329 (1959); Upchurch v. State, 51 Haw. 150, 154, 454 P.2d 112 (1969). HRCP Rule 52(a).

The circuit court could not have taken judicial notice of the entire contents of those files. Lalakea v. Baker, 43 Haw. 321, 322 (1959). For those files to be considered in their entirety by the circuit court on the motion, they should have been presented to that court with the certification required in HRCP, Rule 56 (e). Cane City Builders v. City Bank, 50 Haw. 472, 474, 443 P.2d 145, 147 (1968).

The motion for a directed verdict by defendants should have been granted. Anno. 87 A.L.R.2d 183. Lalakea v. Baker, 43 Haw. 321, 328-29; Sylva v. Cockett, 12 Haw. 133; Ah Chew v. Wong Kuai, 3 Haw. 85. The motion was specific: "* * * Particularly we feel that there is no evidence to show maliciousness or lack of probable cause on the part of any of the defendants causing this prosecution."

In Miller v. Loo, 43 Haw. 76, 80, this court, in referring to Rule 3 (b) (3) concluded that "in considering [that] appeal, we may confine ourselves to the points set forth in or necessarily suggested by the foregoing questions." And cf., Lalakea v. Baker, 43 Haw. 321. It is elementary that all errors of the trial court which are not properly specified in the brief are deemed to have been abandoned or waived and consequently outside the scope of appellate review and will not be considered on appeal. 5 C.J.S., Appeal Error, § 1322; 5 Am.Jur.2d, Appeal and Error, §§ 654, 693. An appeal from a portion of a judgment is allowable and brings up for review only the part thereof so designated in the specifications of error.

The Hawaii Supreme Court has held that "compliance with the requirement of [HRCP] Rule 52(a) with regard to findings . . . is not a jurisdictional requirement of appeal." Lalakea v. Baker, 43 Haw. 321, 329 (1959) (citing Tugaeff v. Tugaeff, 42 Haw. 455, 468 (1958)). In Lima v. Tomasa, 42 Haw. 478 (1958), the Hawaii Supreme Court, "adopt [ing]" the language of a federal case interpreting Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 52(a), explained the rule as follows:

See Molokoa Village Dev. Co. v. Kauai Elec. Co., 60 Haw. 582, 593, 593 P.2d 375, 382 (1979) ("In considering [the appellant's] contention, [the supreme court is] not confined to the trial court's express findings of fact and may also take into consideration the uncontradicted evidence contained in the record."); Associated Engineers Contractors v. State, 58 Haw. 187, 194, 567 P.2d 397, 404 (holding that when the record is "sufficiently clear" the reviewing court "do[es] not need the aid of additional findings"), reh'g denied, 58 Haw. 322, 568 P.2d 512 (1977); Richards v. Kailua Auto Mach. Serv., 10 Haw. App. 613, 621, 880 P.2d 1233, 1238 (1994) ("In cases where the record is so clear that the court does not need the aid of findings it may waive such a defect on the ground that the error is not substantial in the particular case." (quoting Lalakea v. Baker, 43 Haw. 321, 329 (1959))). Defendants assert that this court "does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this appeal" because Plaintiffs do not have "standing to enforce the covenants on Lot 11" under any of the above theories.