The apportionment of the burden of proof in a trial remains a tricky endeavor. Many rules of thumb have evolved to resolve this difficulty among which includes the negation-based rule. The negation-based rule simply posits that the burden of proof is on he who avers the positive and not he who avers the negative. It need not be belabored that the practical application of this rule has presented its fair share of challenges to the many complications arising from allocating the burden of proof. This paper evaluates this rule in the light of Ghanaian Judicial pronouncements and attempts to propose an interpretation and application of the rule that achieves an operationally consistent result.