Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff issued out his Writ of Summons on the 26th day of October, 2021 against
the Defendant for the following reliefs:
a. Recovery of cash the sum of GH¢620 being an amount representing over
payment made by the Plaintiff to the Defendant at the instance of the Plaintiff’s
wife in February 2019 which sum the Defendant has failed to pay despite several
demands.
b. Interest on the said amount to be calculated at the current commercial bank rate
from February 2019 to day of final payment.
When the processes were served on the Defendant, he appeared and pleaded not liable
to the claims. When the court realized that the parties did not appreciate the legalities
involved in filing processes in the matter, it disregarded the filing of written statements
and tasked the parties to file their respective witness statements by which they intended
to prove their claims. So, the case proceeded with the taking of the evidence of the
parties without any reliance on written statements. I think that this course of action by
the court is amply supported by the provisions of the District Court Rules, 2009 (C.I. 59)
in Order 18 r 2(1) (b) which states that the court shall not require a party who is
incapable of preparing or understanding a written statement to file a written statement.
Also, as the Supreme Court held in the case of Armar Nmai & 2 Others v Adjetey
Adjei & 2 Others, (Civil Appeal No. J4/8/2013, unreported), pleadings are not evidence
and to hold otherwise negates the requirements of proof as provided in the Evidence
Act and the well-known cases of Majolagbe vs. Larbi [1959] GLR 190; and Zabrama v.
Segbedzi [1991] 2GLR 221.
Having established the basis of the court’s decision to disregard the written statements
filed, I proceed to determine which of the parties bore the burden to prove their case? It
is a settled principle of law buttressed by the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) that the
onus of producing evidence of a particular fact in civil cases is on the party against
whom a finding of fact would be made in the absence of further proof: see Section 17(a)
and (b) of NRCD 323.The authorities are also in harmony that matters that are capable
of proof must be proved by producing sufficient evidence so that, on all the evidence, a
reasonable mind could conclude that the existence of a fact is more reasonable than its
non-existence. This is the requirement of the law on evidence under sections 10 (1) and
(2) and 11(1) and (4