Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff issued out its Writ of Summons on the 24th day of May, 2022 against the
Defendants for the following reliefs:
a. Recovery of cash the sum of Eight Thousand, Six Hundred Ghana Cedis
(GH¢8,600.00) being the balance of principal loan together with its interest the 1st
Defendant contracted from the Plaintiff on 7th October 2020 which said amount
the 2nd defendant guaranteed its repayment by the 7th April 2021 but which the
defendants have failed and or refused to pay despite repeated demands.
b. Interest on the said sum of Eight Thousand, Six Hundred Ghana Cedis
(GH¢8,600.00) at the current bank rate from 6th May 2022 till date of final
payment.
c. General damages for breach of contract
d. Cost including legal costs for prosecuting the suit.
e. Any other relief(s) that the court may deem fit.
On service of the Writ of summons, the 1st Defendant appeared in court and admitted
liability to the sum of GH¢3,500.00. Judgment was thus entered on the admitted sum
against the 1st defendant with the residue of GH¢5,100.00 left for evidence to be taken
on it for a determination to be made. When the court realized that the case was not one
which necessitated the filing of written statements and that the 1st Defendant who
appeared to defend the suit would not appreciate the legalities involved in filing
processes in the matter, it did not order for the filing of written statements but ordered
that the case proceed with the taking of the evidence of the parties without any reliance
on written statements. I think that this course of action by the court is amply supported
by the provisions of the District Court Rules, 2009 (C.I. 59) in Order 18 r 2(1) (b) which
states that the court shall not require a party who is incapable of preparing or
understanding a written statement to file a written statement. Also, as the Supreme
Court held in the case of Armar Nmai & 2 Others v Adjetey Adjei & 2 Others, (Civil
Appeal No. J4/8/2013, unreported), pleadings are not evidence and to hold otherwise
negates the requirements of proof as provided in the Evidence Act and the well-known
cases of Majolagbe vs. Larbi [1959] GLR 190; and Zabrama v. Segbedzi [1991] 2GLR 221.
Having established the basis of the court’s decision to disregard the written statements
filed, I proceed to determine which of the parties bore the burden to prove their case? It
is a settled principle of law buttressed by the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) that the
onus of p