ADISA SIEDU v. EUGENE NANA OPOKU

JUDGMENT

The Plaintiff herein commenced this action claiming the following against the Defendant:

a. An order of the Court ejecting Defendant from room he is occupying in Plaintiff’s

house.

b. An order directed at Defendant to Pay GH¢2,250.00 being 15 months’ rent arrears

from 1st October 2022 to January 2023 GH¢150 per month.

c. A further order directed at Defendant to pay an amount of GH¢761.84 being

electricity bills in arrears.

d. Cost

The Defendant was duly served with the writ of summons, Court notes and Hearing

Notices. It is however to be noted that even though Defendant had notice of the pending

suit, the Defendant did not file any process to contest the suit or appear in Court

personally to be heard. The Court therefore proceeded under Order 25 of the District

Court Rules, 2009(C.I 59), and proceeded to hear the matter without the Defendant.

Order 25 r 1(2) (a) provides;

“Where an action is called for trial and a party fails to attend, the trial magistrate may where the

Plaintiff attends and the Defendant fails to attend, dismiss the counterclaim if any and allow the

Plaintiff to prove the claim”

PLAINTIFF’S CASE

It is the Plaintiff’s case that, Defendant is his tenant whose rent is due and owing for 15

months at GH¢150.00 a month and yet still continues to occupy the room. In addition to

the rent arrears the Defendant has refused to pay his electricity bills for which he is in

arrears of GH¢800.00. The Plaintiff has maintained that Defendant has refused to pay

both his rent arrears and electricity bills arrears. It is the Plaintiff’s case that the Court

should eject the Defendant from his house.

The Plaintiff closed her case thereafter

In the circumstance the issues that fall for determination are:

i. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of GH¢2,250.00 in rent arrears.

ii. Whether Defendant should be ejected from the room in dispute.

iii. Whether Defendant is liable to pay electricity bills arrears of GH¢761.84

In the case of Adwubeng v. Domfeh [1996-97] SCGLR 660, the Supreme Court held that

in all civil actions, the standard of proof is proof by the preponderance of probabilities,

and there is no exception to that rule.

As noted supra the Defendant did not contradict or challenge Plaintiff’s evidence since

he failed to attend the trial. He did waive the opportunity to offer contrary evidence and

also to cross-examine the Plaintiff.

The position of the law is that, the Court ought to