EDWARD TAYLOR vs KWEKU AMOS & ANOTHER

The plaintiff per a writ of summons seeks the following reliefs:

1. Recovery of cash the sum of One thousand five hundred and sixty Ghana Cedis GH¢ 1,560.00 being rent arrears owed (GH¢ 1,060.00, GH¢ 500.00) respectively).

2. An order of the court ejecting the Defendants forthwith.

3. Cost.

The plaintiff’s case is that the defendants rented a chamber and hall from him. He further asserts that the 1st defendant also rents and occupies a space he uses as a shop in front of his house. According to the plaintiff, the defendants' rent has expired since 2022, and they have failed to pay his rent despite numerous demands. He avers that he desires to renovate his house and thus prays for the relief he seeks.

Upon granting an order for substituted service, the 1st defendant was served with the Writ of Summons with the attached claim and Hearing notices in the suit. The 2nd defendant was present and denied liability to the claim but stated that she had vacated the house. Notwithstanding the service of all these processes on him, the 1st defendant failed to appear in Court, and the Court proceeded to hear the plaintiff prove his claims by Order 25 Rule 1(2)(a) of the District Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2009 (C.I. 59). And for the 2nd defendant, she was heard on the claims.

Issue

The main issues for determination by this Court, which would be determined together, are:

a. Whether or not the Defendants are liable to be ejected from the premises.

b. Whether or not the Defendants are liable to pay the amounts as claimed.

Evaluation of Evidence

A plaintiff must prove his case for a determination to be made in his favour. A party who raises issues essential to the success of his case assumes the onus of proof, and as such, a person who alleges, whether a plaintiff or a defendant, assumes the initial burden of producing evidence. Only when such a person has successfully produced evidence will the other party be required to lead rebuttal evidence, if need be. In the case of Agbosu v Kotey; In Re Ashalley Botwe Lands [2003-2004] SCGLR 420, His Lordship Brobbey, JSC (Rtd.) noted:

“The effect of sections 11(1) and 14 and similar sections in the Evidence Decree 1975 may be described as follows: A litigant who is a Defendant in a civil case does not need to prove anything. The Plaintiff who took the Defendant to court has to prove what he claims he is entitled to from the defendant... At the same time if the court has to make a determination of a fact or of an