Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
May 5, 2023
DISTRICT COURT
GHANA
CORAM
The Plaintiff claims against the Defendant is for the following:
a. Recovery of cash the sum of GH¢589.10 being accumulation of Electricity Bill
owed by the Defendant has willfully refused to pay same in spite of persistent
demands.
b. Punitive cost thereon.
PLAINTIFF’S CASE
It is the Plaintiff’s case that the Defendant used to be his tenant and the Defendant
accumulated electricity bills in arrears of GH¢589.10. The Plaintiff continued that the
action of the Defendant has led to electrical disconnection of the house and all efforts
to recover the said debt have proven futile.
The Plaintiff closed her case without calling any witness.
Despite having notice of the pending suit, the Defendant who had been duly served
chose to absent himself without any valid excuse to the Court. In view of same the
Court therefore proceeded under Order 25 of the District Court Rules, 2009(C.I 59), to
hear the matter in the absence of 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”
In Ankumah v City Investment Co Ltd [2007-2008] 2 SCGLR 1064, Baffoe Bonnie JSC
held at page 1076 as follows;
“A Court is entitled to give judgment in default as in the instant case, if the party fails to
appear after notice of the proceedings has been given to him. For then, it would be justifiable to
assume that he does not wish to be heard.”
In the circumstance the issue that falls for determination is;
Whether or not the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the sum of GH¢589.1 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.
In the present case the Plaintiff has led evidence to establish that, the Defendant owes
an amount of GH¢589.1 electricity bil
AI Generated Summary
This District Court judgment by Her Worship Sarah Nyarkoa Nkansah arises from a landlord’s claim against his former tenant for unpaid electricity charges totaling GH¢589.10. The court recounts that the arrears led to disconnection of power to the house and that repeated demands for payment went unanswered. Although duly served, the defendant failed to attend trial, prompting the court to proceed under Order 25 of the District Court Rules (C.I 59) and consider the plaintiff’s proof in the defendant’s absence. Applying Ghana’s Evidence Act (NRCD 323) and Supreme Court authority, the court held that in civil cases the standard is preponderance of probabilities and that unchallenged evidence is deemed admitted. The plaintiff’s testimony, not tested by cross-examination and uncontradicted, established the debt and its consequences. The court entered judgment for recovery of GH¢589.10 and awarded GH¢500 costs against the defendant, emphasizing procedural default rules and evidentiary burdens.