BABA IDOWU’S PART ON EVIDENCE

Recommended text books; Aguda, Nwadiale, Prof. Dickens on Evidence

21st November 2022
Presumptions in the law of evidence
Most of the authors of dictionaries of English Language like Oxford, Thesaurus, Webster,
Osbond, Cambridge etc. agree in saying that the word presumptions is obtained from the latin word
“praesumpto” which means a supposition, a strict reasoning that a fact exists without further proof; that
is, a conclusion that something or a fact exists in an issue.
From the provisions of S-145(1), Evidence Act, 2011, a presumption is a conclusion which may
or may not be drawn from a given set of fact. S.145(1) provides as follows;
“(i) whenever it is provided by this act that the court may presume a fact, it may either regard such
fact as proof unless and until it is disproved,
(ii) whenever it is directed by this Act that the court shall presume a fact: it shall declare such fact as
proof unless and until is disproved.
(iii) when the fact is declared by the Act, the court shall upon the proof of the one fact regard the other
as proved and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it.

Classification of presumption in Evidence;

Presumptions in the law of evidence can be classified into two broad groups;
(a) Preumptions of laws otherwise known as
(b) Presumptions of fact otherwise known as praesumptiones homines del fact
A presumption of law is an inference which a court must draw from a given set of fact, such
inference is stipulated or presenbed by law.
On the other hand, a presumption of fact is a logical inference of proved facts. Here, this
inference is merely recognised by law but not prescribed or stipulated by it.
Classification of presumptions of law
Presumption of law can also be classified into two sub-headings;
i) Rebuttable presumptions of law, otherwise known as praesumptiones juris
ii) Irrebuttable presumptions of law otherwise known as Praesumptiones juris et
where presumptions are rebuttable, evidences contrary to a fact to be presumed can be offered before a
court of law. In that case, rebuttable presumptions held prima facie, in the first instance, until a
substantive evidence is offered and admitted by the court of law for the purpose of rebutting it.
In the case of irrebuttable presumption of law, they are logical conclusive and absolute and so no
evidence can offered in the court of law for the purpose of rebutting it.
Distinctions between a presumption of fact and a presumption of law.
1) A presumption of fact is dependent upon logical reasoning which a court of law may deduce if he
so desires. On the other hand, a presumption of law is stipulated or prescribed by law and so the
court must draw it in the absence of any evidence in the contrary.
2) The conditions for the application of presumption of law are uniform and static and so the effect
of altering the burden of proof from one party to another. On the other hand, the conditions of the
application of presumption of facts are dependent upon the facts of each case and so may not
have the effect of altering the burden of proof in a particular case.
3) Presumptions of law are drawn by judges while presumption of facts are drawn by jurists, this
distinction is not relevant to the Nigerian legal system because courts in Nigeria are presided over
by judges not jurists.
Rebuttable Presumptions of Law.
By virtue of the provision of S.145(1)(iii) Evidence Act, rebuttable presumptions of law are
stipulated by law and the effect of most rebuttable presumptions in law is to alter the burden of proof
from either the accused to the prosecution or vice versa or from either the plantif to the defendant and
vice versa.
Examples of rebuttable presumptions are very many in the law of evidence. It is however
important to note that in every criminal proceedings, the burden of proving the deed of the accused
beyond resonable lies on the presecution and never shifts, in most cases, but there are few exceptions.
The locus classicus for this contention is the popular decision of Lord sankey in woomington v.
DPP (1953). In that case, Lord Sankey declared through out the web of English criminal law “...any
attempt to whittle it down shall not be tolerated” – Give facts and supply the missing quotation.

Irrebuttable Presumptions
Observed from the provisions of S.145(2) Evidence Act Irrebuttable presumptions are logical,
conclusive and absolute and so court must not only draw them, it must not allow evidence to be given for
the purpose of rebutting it.
The following are classical examples;
1) By virtue of S. 30 criminal code & S.50, penal code applicable in the north, a male person under
the age of 12 years is presumed to be incapable of having carnal knowledge; Therefore, such a
male person below the age of 12 years cannot be convicted of rape or having carnal knowledge of
a girl below the age of 16yrs. However he can be convicted of indecent assault.
2) Under the same provisions, a person/child below the age of 7yrs is presumed to be incapaxdolti.
Therefore, no evidence can be tendered and admitted before any court of law.
3) Under S.17 and other relevant sections of the Companies And Allied Matters Act cap (20, LFRN
2004, the production of the cerificate of registration of a company is presumed conclusively as
the evidence of complying with the regulation of law relating to the formation of a company,
unless there is any other evidence to the contrary.
4) Under S.59 & 61 Evidence Act, 2011, every judgement of a court of law is presumed to be a
conclusive proof of all matters of facts convassed by parties and upon which the judgement has
been based unless a vital evidence to prove a fact intended by a party has been omitted.
In law of evidence, all presumptions are rebuttable; depending on the situations and circumstances.
Therefore, upon the strength of above presentation and narratives, the overall effect of
presumptions in the law of evidence is to establish a fact and once a fact has been established in favour of
a party, that party is no longer under any obligation to prove further evidence to prove that fact again.
In other words, presumptions in the law of evidence are means of establishing matters other wise
than by evidence.

Other examples of Presumptions of law under The Evidence Act, 2011.

Other important categories of presumptions of law under sections 146-168. They include;
a) Presumption as to the authentication or genuinemess of a certified copy of a document.
b) Presumptions as to ducument
c) Presumptions of innocence S.35, CFRM, 1999
d) Pesumptions of sanity
e) Pesumptions of legitimacy
f) Presumptions as to the course of business
g) Presumptions of regularity e.t.c.
Note:
The note may not be error free

MASTERMIND FOR ALL, SERVICE PER EXCELLENCE