Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
By his writ of summons Plaintiff herein issued out of this court a writ of summons with affidavit in support seeking:
a. Recovery of GHc 5,700.00 being the outstanding balance of the cost of crates
of eggs Plaintiff supplied to the Defendant in the month of February, 2023.
b. Interest thereon since February, 2021 till final date of payment.
PLAINTIFF’S CASE
Plaintiff is a trader resident at Ablekuma whilst the Defendant is a caterer at Kasoa. During the month of February, 2021 Plaintiff supplied quantity of eggs to the Defendant to the tune of GHc 6,700.00. That Defendant made a part payment of GHc 1,000.00 remaining a balance of GHc 5,700.00, but all efforts to collect the money from the Defendant has been in vain.
Defendant on the other hand declined to appear in court in spite of hearing notices served on her.
The legal issues for determination is:
i. Whether or not Defendant is liable.
ii. Whether or not Defendant is entitled to the reliefs sought.
The evidential rule in civil cases is that the burden of proof rests upon the party
who substantially asserts the affirmative of his case. In the case of Lamptey alias
Nkpa vrs. Fanyie and Others (1989-90) 1 GLR 286 the Supreme Court held that on
general principles, it was the duty of the Plaintiff to prove his case. However,
when on a particular issue he had led some evidence, then the burden will shift to
the Defendant to lead sufficient evidence to tilt the scale in his favour. This is
clearly covered in section 10,11,12 and 14 of the Evidence Act, 1975, NRCD 323.
In Majolagbe v Larbi (1959) GLR190 @ 192, Ollennu J (As he then was) had this to
say on what constitutes proof in Law:
“Proof in law is the establishment of facts by proper legal means where a
party makes an assertion capable of proof in some way, e.g. by
producing documents, description of things, reference to other
facts, instances or circumstances, and his averment is denied, he does
not prove it by merely going into the witness box and repeating that
averment on oath, or having it repeated on oath, by his witness. He proves
it by producing other evidence of facts and circumstances, from which
the court can be satisfied that what he avers is true’.
Adinyira JSC expatiating on the cardinal principle of Audi alteram paterm in In re:
Kumi (dc’d); Kumi v Nartey (2007-2008) SCGLR 623 @ 632-633 held inter alia as
follows:
“………………….. it is trite law that a person cannot be found
guilty or liable on order or judgment un