the raising of roosters, (3) there are no disputed material facts, and (4) Plaintiffs have failed to overcome the presumption that the County’s anti-cockfighting ordinances are valid. In requesting a declaratory judgment as to whether cockfighting is a protected native Hawaiian right, Plaintiffs urge this court to “determine their rights prior to having to suffer actual criminal prosecution, which is threatened and imminent.” Because we believe Plaintiffs’ request is not appropriate for a declaratory judgment action, we affirm summary judgment on behalf of the State and County, but on different grounds. See Waianae Model Neighborhood Area Ass’n v. City & County of Honolulu, 55 Haw. 40, 43, 514 P.2d 861, 864 (1973); McCarthy v. Yempuku, 5 Haw.App. 45, 52, 678 P.2d 11, 16 (1984) (<HOLDING>). III. It is evident, as mentioned above in
holding that the trial court may not grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the motion recognizing that this court may affirm on any ground supported by the record even if it differs from the reasoning of the district court holding that appellate court can uphold a trial courts ruling on any ground appearing in the record whether urged in the trial court or not recognizing that the court of appeals can affirm a grant on summary judgment on any basis made apparent by the record holding that an appellate court may affirm a grant of summary judgment on any ground appearing in the record even if the circuit court did not rely on it