Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
By Court: The testimony of PW 1 was taken by the Court after which Plaintiff closed
his case. This matter has been pending before this Court and Defendants have
never come to Court despite being served with the processes and Hearing Notices
by posting. Plaintiff’s Lawful Attorney has given his evidence and so has his
Witness. He says he will not call the last Witness on account of ill health.
Defendants have disabled themselves from being heard regardless of the
opportunity afforded them to tell their side of the story even when Witness
Statements were served on them. In the case of Ex Parte State Housing Co. Ltd.
(No. 2) [2009] SCGLR 185 it was opined that a party who disables himself from
being heard cannot later turn around and accuse the adjudicator of breaching the
rules of natural. See also the Republic v. Court of Appeal Accra Ex Parte East
Dadekotopon Development Trust, Civil Motion No. J5/39/2019, dated 30th July,
Crabbe JSC in Baiden v. Solomon [1963] 488 @ 495 held: “It is not open to a party
except on very strong grounds to refuse to take further part in a hearing after an
adverse interlocutory ruling has been made against him”.
I am also mindful of the fact that the suit is a civil one with the burden of
establishing it on the balance of probabilities. In the case of Agyekum v. Amoah,
Civil Appeal No. J4/59/2014, dated 13th April 2916 (Unreported), it was held that
in civil trials, the standard of proof is that of a balance of probabilities. See
sections 11 (4) and 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323 and the case of
Sarkodie v. FKA Co. Ltd. [2009] SCGLR 65 S.C. @ holding 1.
The Courts have also held that he who alleges must prove his case on the strength
of his own case. In Owusu v. Tabiri & Anor (1987-88) 1 GLR 287, it was held that:
It was a trite principle of law that he who asserted must prove and must win his
case on the strength of his own case. The well-established rule is that an averment
can be proved by evidence of a single witness and further that the court can base
its judgment on the evidence of a single witness. See the cases of ZABRAMA V
SEGBEDZI, AYIWAH V BADU (1963) 1 GLR 86 SC and KRU V SAOUD BROS
& SONS (1975) 1 GLR 46 CA where it was held that,
Judicial decisions depend on intelligence and credit and not multiplicity of
witnesses produced at the trial”
Also in the case of GHANA PORTS AND HARBOURS AUTHORITY V.
CAPTAIN ZAVI & NOVA COMPLEX LIMITED, (2007-2008) SCGLR 806 the
Supreme Cou