Presumptions in the Nigerian Evidence Law
PRESUMPTIONS IN THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
Introduction
As a general and fundamental rule in the law of evidence, facts on which a court can base its decision in any proceedings must be proved to exist by evidence.
Nevertheless, the proof of the existence of some classes of facts is dispensed with. Such facts include: facts presumed, facts admitted for the purpose of trial and facts judicially noticeable. This research work basically deals with facts presumed i.e. presumptions.
In the course of discussion, this work shall treat the meaning, rationale and general principles of presumptions. The work also looked the types of presumptions and the slight differences, existing therein; conflicting presumptions and the researcher’s recommendation.
Meaning, Effect and General Principles of Presumptions.
The repealed Evidence Act, 2004 and the Evidence Act did not define presumptions.
According to Blacks’ Law Dictionary, presumption is a legal inference or assumption that a fact exists, based on the known or proved existence of some other fact or group of facts. Also, a presumption is a conclusion which may or must be drawn from a given set of facts until the contrary is proven.
Though the Evidence Act does not expressly define “presumptions”, a close textual perusal of Section 4 yields the following definition: “A conclusion which a court either has an obligation or discretion to draw from a set of facts presented to it.
Presumptions in the law of evidence have the effect of shifting the burden of production or persuasion to the opposing party, who can attempt to overcome the presumption by rebutting it where it is rebuttable. The effect of a presumption is that it tends to establish a fact, dispensing with the provision of any or complete proof. Hence, providing a substitute for evidence in favour of the party in whose favour such presumption exists.
Where there are two conflicting presumptions arising from the same facts, they cancel each other and the
Introduction
As a general and fundamental rule in the law of evidence, facts on which a court can base its decision in any proceedings must be proved to exist by evidence.
Nevertheless, the proof of the existence of some classes of facts is dispensed with. Such facts include: facts presumed, facts admitted for the purpose of trial and facts judicially noticeable. This research work basically deals with facts presumed i.e. presumptions.
In the course of discussion, this work shall treat the meaning, rationale and general principles of presumptions. The work also looked the types of presumptions and the slight differences, existing therein; conflicting presumptions and the researcher’s recommendation.
Meaning, Effect and General Principles of Presumptions.
The repealed Evidence Act, 2004 and the Evidence Act did not define presumptions.
According to Blacks’ Law Dictionary, presumption is a legal inference or assumption that a fact exists, based on the known or proved existence of some other fact or group of facts. Also, a presumption is a conclusion which may or must be drawn from a given set of facts until the contrary is proven.
Though the Evidence Act does not expressly define “presumptions”, a close textual perusal of Section 4 yields the following definition: “A conclusion which a court either has an obligation or discretion to draw from a set of facts presented to it.
Presumptions in the law of evidence have the effect of shifting the burden of production or persuasion to the opposing party, who can attempt to overcome the presumption by rebutting it where it is rebuttable. The effect of a presumption is that it tends to establish a fact, dispensing with the provision of any or complete proof. Hence, providing a substitute for evidence in favour of the party in whose favour such presumption exists.
Where there are two conflicting presumptions arising from the same facts, they cancel each other and the