GH - STEPHEN ASSANFUL v. KWAME ASHIA

This is an action for the recovery of ten bags of dried cocoa beans or its monetary

equivalent of GHc8,000. The case of the plaintiff who describes himself as a cocoa

purchasing clerk, is that on 10th October, 2021, he entered in to an oral agreement with

the defendant for the latter to supply him with ten bags of dried cocoa beans. The plaintiff

avers that pursuant to the agreement, he gave the defendant GHc8000 to buy ten bags of

cocoa beans for him. The defendant has since failed or refused to buy the cocoa for him.

The plaintiff avers that the defendant has also refused to return or refund the GHc8000

to him despite repeated demands.

The defendant was duly served with the writ and hearing notices but he declined the

invitation to come and defend himself. A principle of law is that when a party is given

the opportunity to lead evidence in support of his stand or in defence of allegations

against him but he deliberately declines to avail himself of that opportunity, the court

will be entitled to proceed with the trial to conclusion and make deductions, draw

conclusions or make findings on the basis of the evidence adduced at the trial, see In Re

West Coast Dyeing Industry Limited, Adams vrs. Tandoh [1984-86] 2 GLR 561. Also, see

Republic vrs. High Court Accra, Ex parte Akita, civil motion JS/7/2010 dated 17/02/2010.

In the instant case, I will accordingly make deductions, draw conclusions or make

findings on the basis of the evidence adduced on the record.

After carefully examining the plaintiff’s pleadings and evidence, I am of the considered

opinion that the central issues for determination are:

contract to buy cocoa beans for him and

Whether or not defendant failed to buy the cocoa beans and also failed to return

or refund plaintiff’s money to him despite repeated demands.

Before I determine the issues, I will briefly touch on the burden of proof. The law is

settled that it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove his or her case for he who alleges must

prove. In other words, it is the party who raises an issue essential to the success of his

case who assumes the burden of proving such issue. The burden of proof is statutorily

defined in sections 10 (1) and (2), 11 (1) and (4) and 12 (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act,

1975 (Act 323). The burden of proof in civil cases has been explained in Adwubens Vrs.

Domfeh [1996-97] 1 SCGLR 660. In the i

Ask Case