HOPE AYIKPA v. SIMON DZIWORNU

BACKGROUND

In the month of May, 20219 the Plaintiff herein acquired a building plot from the Defendant at Fan Milk, a suburb of Kasoa at the cost of GHc 13,000.00as a part payment to the Defendant. That the Plaintiff constructed a single room with roof on it with the view to secure the land. Plaintiff visited the land in the month of November,2020 and met someone developing the land. That when he questioned the Defendant he could not give any legitimate answer. All efforts made by Plaintiff to retrieve his money has been in vain even though the Defendant has accepted liability to refund his money together with the expenses to Plaintiff.

Aggrieved by Plaintiff on 12/2/2021 Plaintiff/Applicant herein issued out of this court a writ of summons with affidavit in support seeking :

1. Recovery of GHc13,000.00 being the cost of one plot of land he bought

from the Defendant. since May, 2019 which transaction could not materialize.

2. Payment of an amount of GHc9,000.00.

3. Interest thereon.

4. Cost.

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: