PRINCE OHANAGO v. OPANIN ATTA BOADI

This is an action for the recovery of GHc5,250. At the commencement of the hearing, the

defendant admitted liability for only GHC3,000.00 and so judgment on admission was

entered for the plaintiff to recover GHc3,000.00 from the defendant. The only issue now

for determination is whether or not the defendant owes the plaintiff an outstanding

amount of GHc2,250.00

The case of the plaintiff who is a farmer is that the outstanding amount relates to expenses

he incurred in maintaining a cocoa farm owned by the defendant. The plaintiff

asseverates that at the instance of the defendant, he (the plaintiff) bought weedicide and

other chemicals at GHc2,250.00 and sprayed a cocoa farm of the defendant. He alleges

that the agreement he had with the defendant provides that the latter would refund him

the GHc2,250.00.

The defendant for his part strongly resisted the outstanding claim. He denied the

existence of such an agreement between them. He asserts that the plaintiff never spent

GHc2,250.00 on weedicide and other chemicals pertaining to the said cocoa farm.

Before I determine the only issue set down, I will briefly analyse the burden of proof. In

a civil case, the burden lies on the plaintiff to adduce sufficient evidence to prove his

allegations; see Faibi Vrs. State Hotels Corporation [1968] IGLR 471. The burden of proof

is statutorily defined in sections 11 (1) and 2, 11 (1) and (4) and 12 (1) and (2) of the

Evidence Act, 1975 (Act 323). In Ackah Vrs. Pergah Transport Ltd. [2010] SCGLR 728, the

Supreme Court held that it is a basic Principle of the law of evidence that a party who

bears the burden of proof is to produce the required evidence of the facts in issue that has

the quality of credibility short of which his claim may fail. The method of producing

evidence is varied and includes the testimonies of the party and material witnesses,

admissible hearsay evidence, documentary evidence and other things or real evidence

without which the party might not succeed to establish the requisite degree of credibility

concerning a fact in the mind of the court. In the instant case, the burden lies on the

plaintiff to adduce sufficient evidence to convince the court that his outstanding claim is

more probable than not.

I now proceed to determine the only issue which issue is whether or not the defendant

owes the plaintiff an outstanding amount of GHc2,250.00. The plaintiff alleged that he

bought weedicide and other chemicals worth GHc2,