Try asking the following...
The Plaintiff herein commenced this action claiming the following against the
Defendant:
a. Recovery of the sum of GH¢52,896.00 being the debt owed by the Defendant to
Plaintiff.
b. Interest on (i) above the prevailing bank rate from November, 2009 till the date
of final payment.
c. Costs including the cost of bringing this action.
The Defendant was duly served with the writ of summons. 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
It is Plaintiff’s case that, sometime in August 2018, the Defendant deceitfully
convinced him to invest into a project Defendant purportedly had with UNICEF in
Ghana. According to Plaintiff, he later found out that, Defendant had no contract with
UNICEF. Plaintiff maintained that; he gave a total of GH¢52,896.00 to the Defendant
as investment. Plaintiff added that, all efforts to get Defendant to refund the said
amount have failed and that the Defendant will not refund the money until compelled
by this Court. Plaintiff closed his case thereafter.
In the circumstance the issue that falls for determination is;
“Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of GH¢52,896.00 from the
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, and
there is no exception to that rule.”
The Plaintiff has so far led evidence to establish that, he gave GH¢47,359.00 to
Defendant as investment on the as