Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff’s claim is as follows:
“1. Declaration of title to and Recovery of all that piece of land situate and being at a place
commonly known and called Ayisia near Wasa Akropong sharing boundary with the
properties of Nana Ampong, Kwame Amoah and Opanin Amro as the plaintiff’s
property.
2. Recovery of the sum of forty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHc40,000.00) being the cost of
the plaintiff’s food staffs and his cocoa beans.
3. Perpetual injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants their agents, assigns,
workmen and anybody claiming through them from having any dealings with the said
disputed land thereon.
4. Cost of litigation”
Though the plaintiff’s first relief is for declaration of title to a piece of land and recovery
of possession, the evidence that he led centered exclusively on a cocoa farm; see Plaintiff’s
witness statement and the witness statements of his two witnesses, Pw1 and Pw2. The
first defendant’s case is also exclusively centered on a cocoa farm. The second defendant
was duly served with the writ and all other processes but he declined the invitation to
come to court and defend himself. A principle of law is that when a defendant declines
an invitation to defend himself of allegations made against him, the court is entitled to
proceed with the hearing of the case and give judgment on the basis of evidence on the
record, see Republic Vrs. High Court Accra, Ex parte Akita, civil motion JS/7/2010 dated
After examining the pleadings and evidence of the parties as well as the evidence of their
witnesses, I am of the considered opinion that the central issue for determination is
whether or not the plaintiff is the owner of the cocoa farm in dispute. Before I determine
the central issue, I will briefly touch on the burden of proof. The law is settled that it is
the duty of the plaintiff to prove his or her case for he who alleges must prove. Put
differently, it is the party who raises an issue essential to the success of his case who
assumes the burden of proving such issue. This burden of proof is statutorily defined in
sections 10 (1) and (2), 11 (1) and (4) and 12 (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (Act 323).
The burden of proof in civil cases has further been explained in Adwubeng Vrs. Domfeh
[1996-97] I S C G L R 660.
I now proceed to determine the central issue which is whether or not the plaintiff is the
owner of the cocoa farm in dispute. I do not intend to give a lengthy treatment to the
ce