NYASU VRS NANKPA & ANOR (J2/01/2021) [2024] GHASC 3 (14 February 2024)

NYASU VRS NANKPA & ANOR (J2/01/2021) [2024] GHASC 3 (14 February 2024)

The appellant was not validly nominated by the competent Johotina, and the evidence supports that only the Gbanhaa family is eligible for the Pulima Skin. The concurrent findings of fact by the two lower tribunals are amply supported by the evidence, and there is no cogent basis to overturn them. The appeal fails as the appellant did not meet the essential prerequisites for valid installation as chief under customary law.

Citation
NYASU VRS NANKPA & ANOR (J2/01/2021) [2024] GHASC 3 (14 February 2024)
Parties
Respondent/appellant/appellant: Abdulai Amidu Nyasu; Petitioner/respondent/respondent: Alhaji Abdulai Nankpa (substituted by Zakaria Nankpa); Petitioner/respondent/respondent: Alhaji Bawa Gbanha (substituted by Adamu Nankpa)
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
14 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Chieftaincy Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Succession to Chieftaincy, Customary Nomination and Installation, Concurrent Findings of Fact, Standard of Proof in Civil Appeals
Source Language
eng
Chieftaincy Customary Law Constitutional Law Succession to Chieftaincy Customary Nomination and Installation Concurrent Findings of Fact Standard of Proof in Civil Appeals

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdulai Amidu Nyasu

Respondent/appellant/appellant

Alhaji Abdulai Nankpa (substituted by Zakaria Nankpa)

Petitioner/respondent/respondent

Alhaji Bawa Gbanha (substituted by Adamu Nankpa)

Petitioner/respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Chieftaincy Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant was validly nominated and installed as Kuoro of Pulima under customary law
  2. 2 Whether Pulima Skin belongs exclusively to Gbanhaa family
  3. 3 Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower tribunals can be overturned

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was not validly nominated by the competent Johotina, and the evidence supports that only the Gbanhaa family is eligible for the Pulima Skin. The concurrent findings of fact by the two lower tribunals are amply supported by the evidence, and there is no cogent basis to overturn them. The appeal fails as the appellant did not meet the essential prerequisites for valid installation as chief under customary law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs affirmed
  • Appellant's claims rejected