Asare Ii and Others Vrs Addai and Others [2015] GHASC 147 (12 February 2015)

Asare Ii and Others Vrs Addai and Others [2015] GHASC 147 (12 February 2015)

The application for review fails because the applicants did not establish bias or exceptional circumstances. The majority decision was based on evidence and proper application of customary law. The Jamasihene had no right to divest the Bedomasi-Bretuo family of the Yonso stool, and the language used in the judgment did not amount to bias. No miscarriage of justice occurred to warrant a review.

Citation
[2015] GHASC 147
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/applicant: Nana Yeboah-Kodie Asare II; Plaintiff/appellant/applicant: Nana Kwame Sarfo Kantanka; Defendant/respondent/appellant/respondent: Nana Kwaku Addai; Defendant/respondent/appellant/respondent: Nana Oforiwaa Amanfo; Defendant/respondent/appellant/respondent: Nana Kwame Brobbey; Defendant/respondent/appellant/respondent: Nana Owusu Achiaw; Defendant/respondent/appellant/respondent: Nana Agyapong; Defendant/respondent/appellant/respondent: Opanin Atakora Manu; Defendant/respondent/appellant/respondent: Addae Boateng; Defendant/respondent/appellant/respondent: Francis Yaw Adusei
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
12 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Chieftaincy Review Motion / Supreme Court Review of Prior Supreme Court Majority Decision
Outcome
Application for review dismissed by majority; dissenting opinions would have granted the review.
Legal Topics
Bias in Judicial Proceedings, Review Jurisdiction, Customary Succession, Allegiance and Rebellion Under Customary Law
Source Language
English
Customary Law Chieftaincy Law Constitutional Law Bias in Judicial Proceedings Review Jurisdiction Customary Succession Allegiance and Rebellion Under Customary Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nana Yeboah-Kodie Asare II

Plaintiff/appellant/applicant

Nana Kwame Sarfo Kantanka

Plaintiff/appellant/applicant

Nana Kwaku Addai

Defendant/respondent/appellant/respondent

Nana Oforiwaa Amanfo

Defendant/respondent/appellant/respondent

Nana Kwame Brobbey

Defendant/respondent/appellant/respondent

Nana Owusu Achiaw

Defendant/respondent/appellant/respondent

Nana Agyapong

Defendant/respondent/appellant/respondent

Opanin Atakora Manu

Defendant/respondent/appellant/respondent

Addae Boateng

Defendant/respondent/appellant/respondent

Francis Yaw Adusei

Defendant/respondent/appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Chieftaincy Review Motion / Supreme Court Review of Prior Supreme Court Majority Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court's majority decision was tainted by bias
  2. 2 Whether there were fundamental errors of law or fact causing a miscarriage of justice
  3. 3 Whether the Jamasihene had the right to divest the Bedomasi-Bretuo family of the Yonso stool

Ratio Decidendi

The application for review fails because the applicants did not establish bias or exceptional circumstances. The majority decision was based on evidence and proper application of customary law. The Jamasihene had no right to divest the Bedomasi-Bretuo family of the Yonso stool, and the language used in the judgment did not amount to bias. No miscarriage of justice occurred to warrant a review.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed by majority; dissenting opinions would have granted the review.

Orders

  • No exceptional circumstances found; application for review dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs specified.