The Burden of Proof for the Non-Conformity of Goods under the Ohada Uniform Act on General Commercial Law: A Matter of Interpretation

This article deals with the controversial question of which party bears the burden to proof the non-conformity of the goods at the time the risk passes under a contract of sale of goods as governed by the OHADA Uniform Act on General Commercial Law. It highlights the approach adopted by the Act in attempting to balance the allocation of the burden of proof. This article aims at pointing out the hurdles that beset the uniform working of the OHADA Uniform Act on General Commercial Law, considering the glaring differences between the procedural and evidential laws operating in the member States on matters of proof. Adopting an in-depth content analysis and critical assessment of primary and secondary data, this paper calls for a fundamental harmonisation of the adjectival laws on matters of proof in order to maintain a higher degree of the uniform character of the OHADA laws.