AGNES DOKUA v. KWAKU VICTOR

Plaintiff in this case, Comfort Dokua on the 9th April, 2022 mounted the instant action against the defendant herein claiming as follows; “…the sum of GHC 2,011.00, being the total cost of items defendant destroyed… without any tangible reason. The items are; cocoa drying mat GHC 600.00, two trips of sand GHC 1,200.00, five (5) two by 6 boards GHC 175.00 and 12 moulded blocks GHC 36.00.”

The brief facts of this case as alleged by plaintiff are that, on Sunday, 3rd of April 2022, she had dried her cocoa beans at a place closer to her house. Defendant approached her with a warning that she should remove the cocoa she was drying from that place since it was a street. And that, should plaintiff fail to comply with his warning he would return to destroy the drying mat. Defendant without any provocation returned the next day as indicated by him and destroyed the mat together with her sand and blocks, hence the present action.

Defendant denied plaintiff’s claim, asserting that he only visited a plot of land he has purchased near plaintiff’s residence to level same but never destroyed any item belonging to her.

The general rule in civil trials as in the instant case is that, the party who in his pleadings or his writ raises issues essential to his case assumes the onus of proof, Faibi V State Hotels Corporation [1968] GLR 471, referred. And the standard burden of proof in all civil matters as postulated by the Evidence Act 1975, (NRCD 323,) sections 11(4) and 12(1), is proof by the preponderance of probabilities.

Section 11(4) of the Act provides that the burden of producing evidence requires a party to produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could conclude that the existence of a fact is more probable than its non – existence. Thus, in the instant case, since it is the Plaintiff who has dragged the defendant to court making claims against him without any counterclaim against her, she has the burden of proof. And with defendant’s denial of the said claims, she assumes the burden of establishing that her claims are true and does not discharge the onus until she leads admissible and credible evidence from which the facts she asserts can safely and properly be inferred, Zabramah V Segbedzi [1991] 2 GLR 221, applied.

The parties at the trial, testified personally, with plaintiff calling one witness. And at the end of the trial, it became undisputed between the parties that, the land on which plaintiff was drying her cocoa was