Nana Darku Frempong II V. Nana Owudu Aseku Brempong II (1952)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Practice and Procedure—Evidence in the case unsatisfactory—Onus of proof on plaintiff.

Facts

In the Court below the respondents as plaintiffs claimed a declaration of title to certain land; there was evidence of “traditional history”, on the whole unsatisfactory but on balance favourable to the defendant; but the trial Judge thought he had been somnolent in that he had never sought a declaration of
title whilst the plaintiffs had been vigilant in that they had brought two cases and therefore were entitled to the declaration they sought.

The defendant appealed on the ground of misdirection in the trial Judge: he ought to have asked himself whether the plaintiffs had discharged the duty they had of proving their claim before they could have that declaration.

Held

Where the evidence is unsatisfactory the judgment should be in defendant’s favour on the ground that it is the plaintiff who seeks relief but has failed to prove that he is entitled to what he claims.

Appeal allowed: judgment set aside.