SAMUEL AGBASA v. FELIX APPIAH HANSON

JUDGMENT

On the 7th of September 2020, the plaintiff caused to be issued a writ and statement of

claim against the defendant, in this court, seeking the following reliefs:

1. An order for the recovery of GH¢36,500 being financial assistance given to the

defendant

2. Interest on the sum of GH¢36,500 at the present Bank of Ghana interest rate from

May 2015 to the date of final payment.

At the close of pleadings the following issues were set down for trial:

1. Whether or not the defendant owes the plaintiff GH¢36,500

2. Whether or not the defendant paid GH¢2000 to the plaintiff’s wife towards the

liquidation of the debt owed to the plaintiff

3. Whether or not plaintiff is entitled to his claims

4. Whether the financial relationship between the parties is one where the plaintiff

finances galamsey operations with the defendant having to pay off his

indebtedness with gold supplies5. Whether the plaintiff is trying to pin down other persons indebtedness against

the defendant

6. Whether the defendant paid off plaintiff in their last transaction.

It goes without saying that proof of alleged facts in civil cases is on the preponderance

of probabilities. It is the requisite degree of proof established by section 12(2) of the

Evidence Act, 1975 NRCD 323. The section explains “preponderance of probabilities” to

mean, to convince the court or tribunal that the existence of a fact is more probable than

its non-existence. Preponderance of probability does not call for an exact measure of

certainty as is seen in criminal cases where the degree of proof is beyond reasonable

doubt. It was explained in Bisi and others v Tabiri 1987-88 1 GLR 360 as follows

“but probability denoted an element of doubt or uncertainty and recognized that where there are

two choices, it was sufficient if the choice selected was more probable than the choice rejected.”

Thus where the trier of fact weighs the evidence of both parties and finds that one

party’s evidence is weightier than the other, it was sufficient for the court come to a

conclusion that the weightier evidence was more probable than the other.

See the cases also of Boahen v Golden Age Company [2021] GHASC 91 delivered on the

29th of July 2021 by the supreme court.

The case of Zabrama v Segbedzi decided in 1991, by the Supreme Court, lays down the

burden of the party in satisfying the requisite degree of proof. It provides that

“a person who makes an averment or assertion, which is denied by