Shotokan - Karate - Dojo "KUSUNOKI" e.V.
c/o Thomas Heinze
Short after the death of Nakayama April, 15 1987 it very fast came to disputes within Japan Karate Association (JKA). Someone to whom the guidance of the JKA could be transferred was missing. Important Karate masters such as Kanazawa, Enoeda, Nishiyama or Shoji did not want this or were not heared about this problem.
1990 a group of JKA representatives decided to concern act. An executive committee meeting was called up, to which however only one part of the members was loaded. Participant were Asai, Abe, Yahara, while masters such as Nakahara, Shoji, Ueki, Tanaka or Ida were not present. The participating members of the executive committee decided the exclusion of the not-present members and let themselves register as a new executive committee at the court. Thus there were suddenly two JKA-groups. The one was called " Yahara " - and the other " Nakahara" - group. Both groups stressed to be insisted in the subsequent years the name " Japan carats Association " for itself and on it, to be the only legal representative.
That result was a further split of the Karateka in the whole world, which were estimated now according to the type of the group they belonged to. Each group did not accept Dan-certificates of the other group. The further argument culminated in several lawsuits, which were lost in each case by the "Yahara -group". These continued until 1999, until the highest court in Tokyo on June, 10th refused a revision of the " Yahara parliamentary group ". Thus the "Yahara-group" had finally lost. Only the members of the "Nakahara-group" it were permitted to use the name JKA.
In the same year there were
further discords within the losers, so that Shihan
Asai left these. The losers had found suddenly a new name for
their world union: " Way of Karate World Federation (Karate No Michi)".
1999, case no. 179
Japan Karate Association
In the case 1995 / Ne 279 of the highest Court of Justice " request for invalid clarifying of the resolutions of the extraordinary board meeting " and the relevant decision of the court of 29.10.1998 took place via the plaintiffs a request for permission to the revision.
The criminal offence after
BGB §318, exp. 1, maintained in the complaint reason, could not be
detected by the court.
A revision of the case is not admissible. The plaintiff bears the cost of the negotiation.
(here the names of the three