KWAME KANKAM v. KASKY NGISSAH

Plaintiff instituted the instant Writ at the registry this Honourable Court on

the 25th day of October, 2022 claiming against the Defendant the following

reliefs:

(a)Recovery of cash the sum of GH¢9,900.00 being cost of labour and

expenditure by Plaintiff when Plaintiff contracted him to work on

Defendant’s rubber plantation and which Plaintiff did but thereafter

Defendant forcibly took over the whole of the plantation without

giving Plaintiff any despite the expenses Plaintiff incurred on it.

(b) Cost against Defendant herein.

Defendant pleaded not liable to the above stated claims of the Plaintiff

and by virtue of that the burden then shifts to the Plaintiff to prove his

case against the Defendant by the preponderance of the probabilities

in accordance with section 11(4) and 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975. (N

R C D 323).

Proof of the “preponderance of the probabilities” is defined by section

12(2) of the Evidence Act supra as:

“ . . . That degree of certainty or belief in the mind of the tribunal of

fact or the Court by which it is convinced that the existence of a fact is

more probable than its nonexistence”

The law of proof in Ghana in regulated by the Evidence Act supra and

the common law established by sound legal opinions of the superior

courts in Ghana and in other jurisdictions.

Its general position is captured in the principle: He who asserts must

prove. This position of the law has been affirmed by Kpegah J.A as he

then was, in the case of Zabrama v. Segbedzi (1991) 2 GLR 221 as

follows:

“. . . a person who makes an averment or assertion, which is denied by

his opponent, has the burden to establish that this averment or

assertion is true, and he does not discharge this burden unless he leads

admissible and credible evidence from which the fact or facts he asserts

can properly and safely be inferred”. The nature of each averment or

assertion determines the degree and nature of the burden”.

What this means is that Plaintiffs duty in this suit is to prove his

allegations and assertions by adducing evidence which is satisfactory

and in accordance with the requirements of the law.

This being the position of the law, I shall now go ahead to examine the

evidence adduced by the parties herein in order to determine whether

or not the parties, in conformity with the law, have discharged their

respective burdens of proof to the standard as prescribed as by the

Evidence Act and case law.

Plaintiff gave evidence on oath