Try asking the following...
JUDGEMENT
The Plaintiff herein commenced this action claiming the following against the Defendant:
1. GH¢2,400.00 being cost of 20,000 orange fruits Defendant bought from Plaintiff at
GH¢12.00 per 100 orang fruits but Defendant has refused to pay same since July
2021 despite repeated demands.
2. Interest and 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
Plaintiff claimed that somewhere in July 2021, the Defendant bought 20,000 orange fruits
from his farm at a cost of GH¢12.00 per 100 orange fruits. Plaintiff mentioned also that
the Defendant promised to pay the said amount after she had sold the oranges but even
though the Defendant has since sold all the oranges, all attempts to get the Defendant to
pay the amount have proven futile. Plaintiff therefore prayed the Court to compel the
Defendant to pay the said amount with interest and cost.
PW1
PW1 identified himself as a neighbor of the Plaintiff. He corroborated the evidence led
by the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff closed his case thereafter.
In the circumstance the issue that falls for determination is;
Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of GH¢2,400.00 from the
Defendant.
In the case of Nartey v. Mechanical Lloyd Assembly Press Ltd [1987-1988] 2GLR pg 314
Adade JSC stated that:
‘A person who comes to Court, no matter what the claim is, must be able to make a good case for
the Court to consider, otherwise he must fail’.
Sections 11(4) and 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) provides that the burden of
proof on a party in a civil suit should be on a balance of probabilities.
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.
The Plaintiff and P