Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2009

Principle(s): 1. A party who bears the burden of proof is to produce the required evidence of the facts in issue that has the quality of credibility short of which his claim may fail. 2. Matters that are capable of proof must be proved by producing sufficient evidence so that, on all the evidence, a reasonable mind could conclude that the existence of the fact is more reasonable than its non-existence. 3. When a transaction has been reduced into writing by agreement of the parties, extrinsic evidence was, in general, not admissible to vary the terms.

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 2007

Principle(s): He who alleges has the burden of proof

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2005-2006

Principle(s): 1. It is the duty of the party who asserts the affirmative to prove the point in issue. 2. Where a fact is essential to a claim, the party who asserts the claim has the burden to persuade the court of the existence of that fact. 3. All issues of fact in dispute are proved by evidence. 4. Once a party who asserts discharges the burden of proof on him, and for which reason an inference can reasonably be drawn in his favour, the onus shifts to the other party to disprove that inference not by a mere denial but by reasonable evidence. 5. A person cannot by his acts prove anything in his favour. 6. In assessing the balance of probabilities, all the evidence must be considered, and the party in whose favour the balance tilts is the person whose case is the more probable of the rival versions and is deserving of a favourable verdict.

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2012

Principle(s): The burden of producing evidence may be given to a party as a privilege and not an obligation.

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 1961

Principle(s): 1. The burden of persuasion in a criminal case remains on the prosecution throughout the trial. 2. It always rests on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 3. However, the accused will have the burden of producing evidence (evidential burden) if, at the end of the case of the prosecution, an explanation is required of the accused. 4. In a criminal case, the accused does not have to prove anything but is merely required to raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1993

Principle(s): Burden of proof: burden of persuasion, burden of producing evidence, and shifting of the burden of proof.

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1971

Principle(s): 1. There is a general rule that he who affirms must prove and not he who denies. 2. However, an exception to that rule is that where a statute requires he who denies to prove, he must prove. Put differently, a statute may impose the burden of proof on a party other than the one who alleges.

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2010

Principle(s): He who alleges has the burden of leading evidence to show that the existence of the fact he is alleging was more probable than its non-existence.

Court:

Year: 2004

Principle(s): In a criminal action, the prosecution has the burden of producing evidence to prove the elements of the offence.

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 1997-98

Principle(s): When a law defining an offence is repealed (without a saving provision) during trial and before conviction, the trial ought to be discontinued as there would be no written law under which the accused could be punished; Meaning of principles of legality per Acquah JSC

Court:

Year: 1867

Principle(s): Judicial notice may be taken on the ground of natural impossibility.

Court:

Year: 1908

Principle(s): Courts can take judicial notice of facts that are notoriously known or common knowledge.

Court: High Court

Year:

Principle(s): 1. Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. In the present case, evidence of the appellant having his loan approved by Acheampong was irrelevant as it was of no probative value to proving the two issues. 2. Judicial notice cannot be taken of facts that are not matters of public notoriety.

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1987-88

Principle(s): 1. Circumstantial evidence can be used to convict a person for murder. Such evidence must, however, consistently and overwhelmingly impute guilt and exclude any other rational conclusion. 2. In capital offences, the judge must stress unanimity in the jury’s verdict. 3. Once the jury announces their verdict, they become functus officio. 4. The judge must not prejudge issues and usurp the duty of the jury. 5. In insanity case, the judge is only required to explain the provisions relating to mental conditions and allow the jury decide whether the accused was sane or not.

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1959

Principle(s): 1. In summing up, the judge should leave issues of fact for the jury to decide. 2. In summing up, the trial judge can express his opinion on the facts, but must warn the jury that they are entitled to their own opinion. 3. The judge should not impose or request a verdict from the jury which is unfavourable to the accused. 4. A failure to direct the jury to consider the defence which the accused deserves can amount to a substantial miscarriage of justice.

Court: Privy Council

Year:

Principle(s): 1. It is incorrect to rely on the demeanour of a witness to resolve conflicting accounts of traditional history. The best way of resolving conflicting accounts of traditional history is by reference to the facts in recent years to determine which of the two competing histories is most probable.

Court: Supreme Court

Year:

Principle(s): 1. It is not the law that a plaintiff must prove his traditional story to succeed in an action. 2. Rather, the law is that traditional stories must be weighed along with recent facts, such as the exercise of rights of ownership, to see which of the two rival traditional stories is more probable.

Court: Court of Appeal

Year:

Principle(s): Contains several principles on traditional evidence. 

Court: Supreme Court

Year:

Principle(s): 1. In deciding which traditional story to prefer, the court should consider contemporary facts such as undisturbed overt acts of ownership or possession exercised over the disputed subject-matter. 2. The court must not allow itself to be swayed by how impressive a party narrates his traditional story or the coherency with which such story is narrated. 3. In taking judicial notice of facts, the court should only rely on sources that are disputed.

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2018

Principle(s): 1. Courts have the discretion to exclude or admit evidence obtained in violation of a human right. 2. The courts should, however, exclude evidence obtained in violation of a right if it comes to the conclusion that the admission of such evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or affect the fairness of the proceedings. 3. In criminal cases where the crime is of a grievous nature, it will bring the administration of justice into disrepute if the court excluded evidence in violation of a right. 4. In civil case, it will equally bring the administration of justice into disrepute if the court admits evidence obtained by a litigant who deliberately violates the rights of others in obtaining his evidence.

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1974

Principle(s): 1. Evidence obtained in breach of a constitutionally guaranteed right is not admissible (however, this position has been modified by the Supreme Court in Raphael Cubagee v. Asare and Others [2018] GHASC 14 (28 February 2018)). 2. Where a party fails to object to the admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of the law at the trial court, he may raise the objection on appeal.

Court: High Court

Year: 1975

Principle(s): Evidence obtained in breach of a constitutionally guaranteed right is not admissible (however, this position has been modified by the Supreme Court in Raphael Cubagee v. Asare and Others [2018] GHASC 14 (28 February 2018)). Where a party fails to object to the admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of the law at the trial court, he may raise the objection on appeal.

Court: Supreme Court

Year:

Principle(s): 1. As a general rule, all relevant evidence is admissible. 2. However, evidence whose probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk that its admission will create substantial danger of unfair prejudice or substantial danger of confusing the issues may be excluded. 3. Unsworn statements by a co-accused cannot be admitted as evidence against another person. Such statements can only be used as evidence if repeated under oath and the maker is cross-examined.

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 1962

Principle(s): Circumstantial evidence; admissibility of evidence