Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
February 5, 2023
DISTRICT COURT
GHANA
CORAM
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
AI Generated Summary
Plaintiff sued in October 2022 to recover GH 9,900 from Defendant, alleging that he was contracted to maintain four cocoa farms at Amonie, near Nyankomam, under an agreed proceeds-sharing arrangement of two-thirds to Defendant and one-third to Plaintiff, and that he also worked on a rubber plantation. Plaintiff engaged five labourers, incurred labour and feeding expenses, and was later told by Defendant to stay off the farms. Defendant admitted the cocoa arrangement but denied any rubber engagement, claimed Plaintiffs work was unsatisfactory, and offered GH 1,000. Applying Ghanas Evidence Act (NRCD 323) and precedents emphasizing credibility over witness numbers, the court found the contract proven and treated Defendants admission as corroboration. The court held Plaintiff met the preponderance standard, awarding GH 9,900 and GH 2,000 costs, noting Defendant is Plaintiffs grandfather.