JANET TETTEH WAYO v. MKK FARMS PER ITS PROPRIETER KWABENA KUMA MARFO

The Plaintiff herein commenced this action claiming the following against the Defendant:

a. Recovery of an amount of Fifty-five Thousand Two Hundred Ghana Cedis

(GH¢55,200.00) being the outstanding balance of bags of maize purchased by the

Defendant from the Plaintiff.

b. Interest on the amount stated in the above from the date of judgment till final date

of payment.

c. Costs.

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

The Plaintiff averred that within the months of June and July 2021, she supplied bags of

maize to the Defendant totaling the sum of Eighty-six Thousand Two Hundred and

Twenty Ghana Cedis (GH¢86,220. 00) which was delivered in two trenches and the

delivery was acknowledged by the Defendant. Plaintiff asserted that per the agreement

the Defendant was to make full payment within a month after receiving the goods but as

at 21st August 2021, the Defendant had only made a total instalment of GH¢31,000.00. The

Plaintiff continued that unless this Honorable Court compels the Defendant, he will not

pay the remaining balance of GH¢55,200.00.

In the circumstance the issue that falls for determination is:

Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of GH¢55,200.00 from

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,