JUDGMENT  
The Plaintiff is a limited liability company duly registered under the laws of the Republic of Ghana for the purpose of selling or supplying cardboards.  The Defendant is also a limited liability company registered under the laws of the Republic of Ghana and deals in the bottling and boxing of Safina Mineral Water.  
In the Plaintiff’s statement of claim, the Plaintiff claims against the Defendant the following reliefs: “a. The payment of the sum of GH¢30,556.97 being the outstanding balance owed the Plaintiff as at 31st August, 2013. 
2  
b. Interest on the above sum at the prevailing bank rate from September, 2013 till date of final payment. c. Cost.”  
The material facts which gave rise to the matter before me are as follows.  The Plaintiff avers that between the period of January 15, 2013 and August 31, 2013, it agreed to sell and/or to supply to the Defendant company cardboards on credit basis based on an oral agreement it had with the defendant company.  Per the terms of this oral agreement, the defendant was afforded thirty (30) days to make payment on every invoice raised.  The Plaintiff avers further that the Defendant company made some payments leaving an outstanding balance of Thirty Thousand, Five Hundred and Fifty-Six Ghana Cedis and Ninety Pesewas (GH¢30,556.97) as at 1st September, 2013.   It is the claim of the Plaintiff that the Defendant has failed or neglected to pay the balance outstanding in the sum of Thirty Thousand, Five Hundred and Fifty-Six Ghana Cedis and Ninety Pesewas (GH¢30,556.97) in spite of repeated demands made on it to pay same.  
A review of the record indicates that on February 25, 2015, the Defendant entered appearance through its solicitor, Lamtiig Apanga, Esq of Gyandoh Asmah & Co who filed a statement of defence in the behalf of the Defendant on April 16, 2016.  The following issues were set down for trial after pre-trial settlement failed: 1. Whether or not the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant Company with cardboard between January 15, 2013 and August 31, 2013. 2. Whether or not the Defendant had thirty (30) days to make payments on every invoice raised. 3. Whether or not the Defendant company did not owe the Plaintiff Company GH¢30,556.97 as at 31st September, 2013. 4. Whether or not the Plaintiff Company is entitled to its claims.  
After pre-trial, the case was referred to this Court for the conduct of the trial.  It is noted, that the Defendant never appeared in court to contest the trial notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant was served with several hearing notices of the dates for trial and the Court’s Notes as evidenced 
3  
by the numerous affidavits of service on the record.  It is on record, however, that on January 14, 2016, Counsel for Defendant filed a notice of withdrawal of his representation with the Registry of this Court.  Having failed to comply with the case management orders made by this Court on February 15, 2016, which orders were duly served on the Defendant per the affidavit of service on record, the statement of defence filed by the Defendant was struck out by the Court on June 24, 2016 in accordance with Order 32 rule 7A of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, (CI 47) (as amended).  It is further noted that the Defendant failed to cross-examine the Plaintiff on its evidence, having failed to participate in the trial.  
In the circumstance, the only triable issue material to the disposition of this suit, in my view, is 1. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to it reliefs as endorsed on the writ of summons.  
The general rule is that where a party to a civil suit raises issues that are essential to the success of his claim, he assumes the onus of proof, whether it is the plaintiff who asserts a fact or the defendant who makes a counterclaim.  See BANK OF WEST AFRICA LTD. v. ACKUN [1963] 1 GLR 176-182 where the court held that the onus of proof in civil cases depends upon the pleadings and the party who in his pleadings raises an issue essential to the success of his case assumes the burden of proof. The court applied the English case of HUYTON-WITH-ROBY U.D.C. v. HUNTER [1955] 2 All E.R. 398, C.A.  In the case of FAIBI v. STATE HOTELS CORPORATION [1968] GLR 471-480 the court also held that “… [t]he onus in law lay upon the party who would lose if no evidence was led in the case; and where some evidence had been led it lay on the party who would lose if no further evidence was led”.  The Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) (hereinafter, “NRCD 323”), encapsulates the foregoing principle in Section 14 where it uses the term the “burden of persuasion” and provides that the asserting party must prove each fact of his claim, the existence or non-existence of which is essential to the claim or defence he is asserting.   
Section 12(1) of NRCD 323 provides a further element to the above stated general rule to the effect that in a civil case, such as the one in question, the burden of persuasion requires proof by a “preponderance of probabilities” defined in section 12(2) as “that degree of certainty of belief in 
4  
the mind of the tribunal of fact or the court by which it is convinced that the evidence of a fact is more probable than its non-existence”.     
From the foregoing, therefore, it is clear that for the Plaintiff to succeed on its claims, it assumes the onus of proving its assertions against the Defendant.  
It is the Plaintiff’s case that the Defendant breached the terms of the agreement between the parties when it failed to pay the balance due and outstanding from the cardboards it, the Plaintiff, supplied to the Defendant in the total sum of Thirty Thousand, Five Hundred and Fifty-Six Ghana Cedis and Ninety Pesewas (GH¢30,556.97) as at 1st September, 2013.  
To prove its claim, the Plaintiff supported its claims with the testimony of its representative, Mr. Gyamebi, a Sales Executive with the Plaintiff Company for over ten (10) years and who, according to his testimony given on oath to this court, directly dealt with the Defendant in the transactions leading up to the filing of this present suit.  He testified that it was the course of dealings between the parties that the Defendant would place an order for the supply of cardboards with him or in the event that he was absent from work at the time, with any other sales person of Plaintiff Company and based on the order so made and the agreed delivery date, the Plaintiff would supply the Defendant with the cardboards.    
Mr. Gyamebi further testified that between the period of January 15, 2013 and August 31, 2013, the Plaintiff Company agreed to sell and/or to supply to the Defendant Company with cardboards on credit basis and the Defendant was afforded thirty (30) days to make payments for those supplies.  He testified additionally that after the Plaintiff had supplied the Defendant with the cardboards, the Defendant company made some part payments leaving an outstanding balance in respect of which Plaintiff’s lawyers wrote to Defendant to demand payment.  He asserted that the Defendant subsequently replied to that letter asking to pay by installments in a letter dated February, 9, 2015.    
Through Plaintiff’s representative, the Plaintiff tendered into evidence, marked as Exhibit “A” in the record, copies of the Defendant’s Account Statement beginning January 15, 2013 and ending 
5  
August 31, 2013. Plaintiff also tendered into evidence the credit sales invoices issued to the Defendant on various dates and for differing amounts.  See Exhibits “B”, “B1”, “B2”, B3” and “B4”.  It appears from Exhibit “C” tendered by Plaintiff that owing to the persistent refusal and/or neglect of the Defendant to pay its outstanding debt, the Plaintiff instructed its lawyers to issue this letter, titled "Final Demand Notice to the Defendant to demand payment and or to recover the outstanding debt.  Plaintiff further tendered Exhibit “D” in support of its claims.  Exhibit “D” is a letter from the Chief Executive Officer of the Defendant Company proposing to pay the debt owed in monthly instalments commencing April 1, 2015.  
A review of the record before me supports a finding that the Plaintiffs’ documentary evidence and statement of claim were corroborated in material aspects by the testimony of the Plaintiff’s representative.   The Defendant, on the other hand, failed to file any evidence to controvert the testimony of this witness and/or the documentary evidence of the Plaintiff and also failed to attend court to cross examine the Plaintiff’s witness.  Regarding the onus of proof on a defendant in a civil case, Brobbey, JSC in the Supreme Court case of IN RE ASHALLEY BOTWE LANDS; ADJETEY AGBOSU and OTHERS v. KOTEY and OTHERS [2003-2004] SCGLR 420 at 465 had this to say:   “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.  The logical sequel to this is that if he leads no such facts or evidence, the court will be left with no choice but to evaluate the entire case on the basis of the evidence before the court, which may turn out to be only the evidence of the plaintiff.  If the court 
6  
chooses to believe the only evidence on record, the plaintiff may win and the defendant may lose.  Such loss may be brought about by default on the part of the defendant.  In the light of the statutory provisions, literally relying on the common law principle that a defendant does not need to prove any defence and therefore does not need to lead any evidence may not always serve the best interest of the litigant even if he is a defendant.”   And on the failure of a party to cross-examine a witness after he has given his evidence in chief, the position of the law is well settled. In the case of TAKORADI FLOUR MILLS v. SAMIR FARIS [2005-2006] SCGLR 882, Ansah JSC referred to the case of TUTU v. GOGO, [Civil Appeal No. 25/67 dated 28th April, 1969, unreported] digested in 1969 CC, 76, where Ollenu JA stated thus:   “In law, where evidence is led by a party and that evidence is not challenged by his opponent in cross-examination, and the opponent did not tender evidence to the contrary, the facts deposed to in the evidence are deemed to have been admitted by the party against whom it is led, and must be accepted by the court.”  
On the strength of the foregoing positions of the law, the court is left with no option than to find the testimony of the Plaintiff’s witness, offered to corroborate the Plaintiff’s statement of claim and documentary evidence, unchallenged and therefore credible.  In stating thus, I am further guided by the holding of the court in the leading case of MAJOLAGBE v. LARBI [1959] GLR 190 which supports the principle that when a party makes an averment in his pleading which is capable of proof in a positive way and the averment is denied, that averment can be sufficiently proved by testimony on oath supported by some corroborative evidence.  See further the cases of KLUTSE v. NELSON [1965] GLR, 537, SC and ZABRAMA v. SEGBEDZI [1991] 2 GLR 221, CA.  
The Plaintiff, nonetheless, is required to prove it is entitled to its reliefs as endorsed on its writ of summons.  See IN RE ASHALLEY BOTWE LANDS; ADJETEY AGBOSU and OTHERS v. KOTEY and OTHERS, supra, per Brobbey JSC at 465.   
7  
It is the claim of the Plaintiff, essentially, that it had an oral agreement with the Defendant to supply the Defendant with cardboards on credit basis, payable after thirty (30) days on every invoice raised.    
It is trite that for a valid contract to exist the parties must be in agreement regarding all the essential terms of the contract or the circumstances surrounding the contract must be such that it may be reasonably inferred that the parties were tacitly agreed as to the terms of the contract.  There should also be the four main elements of contract present, that is,  (i) the parties must have capacity to enter into the contract,  (ii) there must be offer and acceptance of key terms of the contract on which the parties are in agreement,  (iii) there must be consideration for the exchange of goods or services; and  (iv) the intention of the parties to create legal relations must be unmistakable.   
I find that there is no dispute regarding the fact that there was an agreement between the parties for the sale of cardboards.  This is because even in the absence of a written agreement to demonstrate the intentions of the parties, it can be reasonably inferred from the facts and the evidence before me, that the parties were tacitly agreed as to the supply and purchase of cardboards.  Indeed, it appears from the evidence before me that the Defendant actually made part payments on invoices raised for supplies made to it by the Plaintiff in execution of their oral agreement.  These invoices are marked herein as Exhibits “B”, “B1”, “B2”, “B3” and “B4”.  Furthermore, an evaluation of the letter issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Defendant Company, marked herein as Exhibit “D” shows that after the Plaintiff took out the writ of summons against the Defendant, the Defendant, through its Chief Executive Officer acknowledged the debt owed in the total amount of GH¢30,556.97 and seeking to avoid a protracted trial offered to liquidate the balance owed and outstanding by three (3) monthly instalments commencing April 1, 2015.    
Since the statement of defence of the Defendant was struck out and the Defendant also failed to utilise the opportunity to state its case through cross-examination of the Plaintiff’s representative, this court finds as a fact that by the undisputed evidence before the court, the parties reached an 
8  
agreement for the supply of cardboards on credit basis, payable after thirty (30) days on every invoice raised.  I am also satisfied that the Defendant admitted owing the Plaintiff in the sum of GH¢30,556.97 as balance outstanding in respect of the part payments it made to the Plaintiff for the supply of cardboards for the period indicated in the writ of summons.  
The Plaintiff performed its part of the agreement by delivering the cardboards to the Defendant, which Defendant admits accepting.  By the Plaintiff performing its part of the agreement, this court owes a duty to compel the Defendant, on the other hand, to perform its side of the agreement, which is, to pay for the balance outstanding on the invoices raised in the sum of GH¢30,556.97 as at 1st September, 2013 in line with the doctrine of sanctity of contracts.  This doctrine is a general idea that once parties duly enter into a contract, they must honor their obligations arising thereunder.  Thus when qualified parties have consciously entered into a contract, the court must enforce the contract unless there are in existence conditions that when proven will nullify the agreement.  [These conditions include fraud, frustration and any such acts which will prevent the court from indorsing the contract.]  In my view, this doctrine is encapsulated in the provisions of the Sales of Goods Act, 1962 (Act 137), which by its Section 21 provides that “[T]he fundamental obligations of the buyer in a contract of sale are to pay the price and accept delivery of the goods.”  [Emphasis mine.]  In any event, and as stated earlier, this debt was admitted by the Defendant’s Chief Executive Officer in Exhibit “D” and the Defendant must abide by that admission and pay its just debts.   From the evidence adduced in this case and the testimony of Plaintiff’s representative, I am satisfied that it is more probable than not that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the cardboards for which Defendant made part payments leaving a balance due and outstanding in the amount claimed by Plaintiff in its statement of claim with the total indebtedness of the Defendant standing at Thirty Thousand, Five Hundred and Fifty-Six Ghana Cedis and Ninety Pesewas (GH¢30,556.97) as at 1st September, 2013.  I also find that the Defendant, though having admitted to owing this sum of money, failed and/or neglected to pay its just debts to the Plaintiff in spite of several demands made on it by Plaintiff so to do in breach of its obligations under the contract between the parties and in breach of the law.   
9  
From the foregoing, I am satisfied that the Plaintiffs’ action succeeds.  Judgment is entered for Plaintiff in favour of reliefs (a) and (b) as endorsed on its writ of summons.    
I award costs in the sum of GH¢3,000.00 in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant.      
        ……………………………………………….. JUSTICE JENNIFER ABENA DADZIE     JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT     (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) COUNSEL:     EMMA OWUSU-MARFO, ESQ. (HOLDING BRIEF FOR ISAAC OSEI BONSU, ESQ.) OF MINKAPREMO & CO., AKOSOMBO CHAMBERS, ACCRA, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF. NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF SUNRIDGE CO. LTD., DODOWA, DEFENDANT.  
CASES REFERRED TO:  
BANK OF WEST AFRICA LTD. v. ACKUN [1963] 1 GLR 176-182 
HUYTON-WITH-ROBY U.D.C. v. HUNTER [1955] 2 All E.R. 398, C.A.   
FAIBI v. STATE HOTELS CORPORATION [1968] GLR 471-480 
IN RE ASHALLEY BOTWE LANDS; ADJETEY AGBOSU and OTHERS v. KOTEY and OTHERS [2003-2004] SCGLR 420 at 465 
MAJOLAGBE v. LARBI [1959] GLR 190 
KLUTSE v. NELSON [1965] GLR, 537, SC  
ZABRAMA v. SEGBEDZI [1991] 2 GLR 221, CA. 