Bedel v Arthur (A2/98/24) [2024] GHADC 695 (19 November 2024)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT, MANKESSIM IN THE CENTRAL REGION OF GHANA, ON TUESDAY, THE 19TH OF NOVEMBER 2024, BEFORE HER WORSHIP, BERNICE MAWUSI KPODO ESQUIRE, SITTING AS DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SUIT NO. A2/98/24 BETWEEN ALHASSAN BEDEL PLAINTIFF H/NO. TIMBER MARKET MANKESSIM AND KOBBY ARTHUR DEFENDANT H/NO UNKWOWN SALTPOND BEACH SALTPOND TIME: 9:22AM PLAINTIFF PRESENT DEFENDANT ABSENT NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR THE PARTIES JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION 1 On 27 February 2024, the Plaintiff initiated a legal action against the Defendant by filing a Writ of Summons along with the Particulars of Claim, seeking the following relief: - 1. Recovery from the defendant an amount of GH¢9,600.00 being cost of wood the defendant purchased from the plaintiff but has refused to pay. 2. Interest from the date of purchase. 3. Cost of issuing the writ of summons. 4. Any order the court may deem fit. PLAINTIFF’S CASE The Plaintiff asserts that in May 2022, the Defendant acquired a quantity of wood from him for a total amount of GH¢9,600.00. This wood was intended for the construction of a structure at the beach pub owned by the Defendant. Plaintiff contends that without the intervention of this honourable court to compel Defendant to settle this debt, Defendant is likely to refuse to fulfil his payment obligations. DEFENDANT’S CASE The Defendant disputed the plaintiff’s claim. ISSUES The primary matter that requires careful examination and resolution in this case is: Whether or not the Plaintiff bought wood in the sum of nine thousand six hundred Ghana Cedis (GH₵9600.00) for the completion of the Beach pub. The fundamental principles governing the law of evidence in Ghana are established to ensure fair and consistent legal proceedings. These principles outline the types of 2 evidence admissible in court, the standards for evaluating that evidence, and the procedures for presenting it. Section 10 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) provides as follows: (1) For the purposes of this Decree, the burden of persuasion means the obligation of a party to establish a requisite degree of belief concerning a fact in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the court. (2) The burden of persuasion may require a party to raise a reasonable doubt concerning the existence or non-existence of a fact or that he establish the existence or non-existence of a fact by a preponderance of the probabilities or by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Section 11 of NRCD 323 also provides that: (1) For the purposes of this Decree, the burden of producing evidence means the obligation of a party to introduce sufficient evidence to avoid a ruling against him on the issue (4) In other circumstances the burden of producing evidence requires a party to produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could conclude that the existence of the fact was more probable than its non-existence. Section 12 of NRCD 323 (Proof by a Preponderance of the Probabilities) (1) Except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of persuasion requires proof by a preponderance of the probabilities. (2) "Preponderance of the probabilities" means that degree of certainty of belief in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the court by which it is convinced that the existence of a fact is more probable than its non-existence. Also, in Majolagbe v Larbi & others (1959) GLR 190-195, it was held at page 192 that: 3 “Proof, in law, is the establishment of fact by proper legal means; in other words, the establishment of an averment by admissible evidence. Where a party makes an averment, and his averment is denied, he is unlikely to be held by the Court to have sufficiently proved that averment by his merely going into the witness-box, and repeating the averment on oath, if he does not adduce that corroborative evidence which (if his averment be true) is certain to exist.” See also Klutse v. Nelson [1965] GLR 537 and Air Namibia (Pty) Ltd. V. Micon Travel & Tour & 2 Ors, [2015] 91 G.M.J, @ page 177. In the case of Bisi v. Tabiri & Anor [1987-88] 1 GLR 360 (holding 2), SC, the standard of proof was clarified as follows: “The standard of proof required of a plaintiff in a civil action was to lead such evidence as would tilt in his favour the balance of probabilities on the particular issue. The demand for strict proof… had however never been taken to call for an inflexible proof either beyond reasonable doubt or with mathematical exactitude or with such precision as would fit a jig-saw puzzle…” LEGAL ANALYSIS The principle of burden of proof establishes that it is the responsibility of the Plaintiff to provide evidence for their claims, as the party making an allegation must substantiate it. Specifically, the party raising an essential issue for their case is tasked with proving that issue. This burden of proof is defined in sections 10 (1) and (2), 11 (1) and (4), and 12 (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), and is further elucidated in the case of Adwubeng v. Domfeh [1996-97] S.C.G.L.R. 660. It is important to note that when a Plaintiff specifically pleads an issue of fact, a corresponding denial by the Defendant in their statement of defence is necessary to create an obligation for the Plaintiff to present credible and sufficient evidence 4 regarding that fact to prevail in their claim. This requirement is anchored in sections 10, 11, and 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323). Sections 11 (4) and 12 (2) clarify that the proof in civil cases is based on a preponderance of probabilities, as established in Adwubeng v. Domfeh. Furthermore, a mere assertion by the Plaintiff regarding a fact stated in their pleadings is insufficient to meet the burden of proof necessary for a successful claim. The Plaintiff must provide additional evidence, including documentary evidence, to support the veracity of their assertions and satisfy the court of their truth. Plaintiff testified that a business relationship developed with Defendant regarding the supply of wood. The plaintiff recounted that the defendant would occasionally call to request wood, which would then be loaded onto a vehicle for transport to his location at Saltpond Beach. Payments were sometimes made partially upfront, and he continued supplying wood until the defendant's project was completed. Once the project was finished, the plaintiff began to demand payment for the total wood supplied, which amounted to GH¢9,600.00. Around three months ago, the plaintiff testified that he took legal action against the defendant due to the outstanding amounts. During a court session, a police officer approached to inform them that the defendant had sent someone with a request to settle the matter privately, promising to pay the owed money within three days. Consequently, the case was dismissed from court. This evidence merely echoed his statements in his pleading or the particulars of the claim, which the defendant had denied without further elaboration, particularly concerning the issue at hand. 5 The Plaintiff, under cross-examination by the Defendant, stated as follows: “Q. Per the date he gave the court is not true, because I met him in August 2021 that we begun the project? A. That is true. Q. Per the wood described, it was for roofing. We did not buy bamboo or 4/6 or 2/2 that you are saying? A. That is not true. Q. Per what you said that you supply wood and I make payment do you have receipts to give evidence the payment I have made? A. No, because we became friends so whenever he calls on phone and I send the woods thus there was no issue of receipts involved. Q. Per the summons I realized you stated that in May 2022, that is when the transaction took place was that the last transaction we had? A. That is when you started collecting the wood for the Saltpond project. Q. Per the records the last purchase was in August 2022? A. That is not true.” Under cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witness (PW1) “Q. You said you know me but I have never met you before? A. The plaintiff, who is also a colleague who deals in wood came to me that he needed wood to supply to you at Victoria park at Saltpond. Q. On which date exactly did you supply the woods or items you mentioned? A. It is two (2) years now. Q. I put it to you that is the date that the transaction took place with the plaintiff? A. It is not true. 6 Q. With the woods you mentioned and the projects we did there was no 4/4 or any of the woods you mentioned, the woods we used was for roofing so it is not what you supplied? A. That is not true, the woods that plaintiff supplied to you that is what was used to build the summer hat at Saltpond beach and the dimensions were 4/4, kyenkyen, 1/2/16 feets. Q. I put it to you that the woods were paid for, some got damaged, and I repurchased them, and I still made payment. All you said were paid for? A. I have not received any money from the plaintiff.” From the above evidence of Plaintiff and PW1, Plaintiff claims he supplied wood to Defendant by instalment, but could not tell the court how much he provided per instalment, which sums up the amount he is claiming. Especially where the defendant has disputed the type of wood, the project it was used for and the timelines. The plaintiff failed to provide the record of payment or any other evidence to the court. Also, the Plaintiff’s witness testified that the plaintiff supplied the wood to the defendant after buying same from him, the evidence shows that PW1 never dealt with the defendant, and neither did he witness the plaintiff dealing with the defendant. It is a well-established legal principle that simply asserting something or repeating a party's pleadings in testimony without any additional support does not qualify as proof. In Klah V. Phoenix Insurance Co. Ltd [2012] 2 SCGLR 1139, this principle was reiterated: “Where a party makes an averment capable of proof in some positive way e.g. by producing documents, description of things, reference to other facts, instances and his averment is denied, he does not prove it by merely going into the Witness box and repeating that averment on oath or having it repeated on oath by his witness. He proves it by producing 7 other evidence of facts and circumstances from which the Court can be satisfied that what he avers is true.” See also Majolagbe v Larbi & others (1959) GLR 190-195 and Klutse v. Nelson [1965] GLR 537. The defendant was provided with multiple opportunities to present his defence, but he was not present in court to proceed with this opportunity. In the case of the defendant, the law is that in a claim made by a plaintiff, there is no onus on the defendant to disprove the claim, so however unsatisfactory or conflicting the defendant’s evidence may be, it cannot avail the plaintiff. The evidence of the defence only becomes important if it can upset the balance of probabilities which the plaintiff’s evidence might have created in the plaintiff’s favour, or if it tends to corroborate the plaintiff’s evidence, or tends to show that the evidence led on behalf of the plaintiff was true. See: Barima Gyamfi & Anor v. Ama Badu [1963] 2 GLR 596. Moreover, in the case of In Re Ashalley Botwe Lands; Adjetey Agbosu & Ors v. Kotey & Ors [2003-2004] SCGLR 420 at 465, it was held thus: “A litigant who is a defendant in a civil case does not need to prove anything; the plaintiff who took the defendant to court has to prove what he claims he is entitled to from the defendant. At the same time, if the court has to make a determination of a fact or of an issue, and that determination depends on evaluation of facts and evidence, the defendant must realize that the determination cannot be made on nothing. If the defendant desires the determination to be made in his favour, then he has the duty to help his own cause or case by adducing before the court such facts or evidence that will induce the determination to be made in his favour." 8 In the earlier parts of the discussion, it is emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the person making the allegation. In this case, the Plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated that he provided wood with the amount of GH¢9,600.00 for the completion of the defendant’s pub; thus, the defendant had no balance of probabilities to assail. CONCLUSION After reviewing all the evidence presented by the parties and the analysis above, the court concludes as follows: 1. The court has determined that the Plaintiff did not successfully establish the facts necessary to support his claim, as required by a preponderance of the probabilities. Consequently, the Plaintiff's request for reliefs is dismissed in its entirety. 2. Additionally, there will be no orders regarding costs, meaning that each party will be responsible for their own expenses related to this matter. (SGD.) HER WORSHIP BERNICE MAWUSI KPODO (DISTRICT MAGISTRATE) 9