ADANUTY GODFRIED v. JUSTICE KWABLA BOTSYOE AND JOSHUA BUATSI

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff herein approached the civil altar of this court by a writ of summons

issued against the defendants jointly and severally seeking the following reliefs:

a) An order for the recovery of GH¢39,402.84 being the outstanding balance

of a loss first defendant incurred at plaintiff's chemical shop which second

defendant guaranteed to liquidate.

b) An order of interest on the said amount of GH¢39,402.84 from 29th October

2021 at the prevailing bank rate until the end of final payment.

c) General damages for inconveniences caused to the plaintiff.

The writ of summons was accompanied by a statement of claim issued together with

it on 18 November 2021 in which the plaintiff had spelt out the factual situation that

led to the instant suit.

The defendants filed their notice of entry of appearance on 24 November 2021 and

followed same with their statement of defence on 10 December 2021. In the said

statement of defence, the defendants detailed out the grounds upon which they

implore the court to dismiss the case of the plaintiff as having been brought in bad

faith. Pursuant to the rules of court particularly Order 11 rule 3(1) of the High Court

(Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI 47), the plaintiff upon receipt of the statement of

defence filed a reply to the statement of defence on 21 December 2021.

Since the instant suit is a civil case and carries with it the same evidential burden as

every other civil case, the plaintiff is required by section 11(1) of the Evidence Act,

1975 (NRCD 323) to adduce admissible, cogent and credible evidence in support of

the reliefs sought. See: First Eye Ltd v. Jehovah God See Me Herbal Shop & Others

[2013-2015] 1 GLR 101. Suffice it to say that the defendants in the instant suit did not

file any counterclaim, and therefore did not assume any such burden of proof.

From the pleadings filed by the parties, the plaintiff set out a couple of issues for the

determination of the court. The said issues were adopted by the court as issues set

down for determination. They were:

1. Whether or not the plaintiff is the owner of Vision Chemical Shop.

2. Whether or not the first defendant was employed as a shop attendant at

the said shop?

3. Whether or not there was shortfalls which the first defendant admitted

liabilities of and promised to pay which said promise was guaranteed by

the second defendant.

4. Whether or not the first defendant made part-payment of GHc500 to the

plaintif