Presumptions in Evidence Law

Definition and Interpretation of Presumption

Presumption can be understood as a legal conclusion drawn in the absence of evidence contradicting it. It acts as a substitute for direct evidence, enabling conclusions to be made about certain facts.
The Evidence Act, 2011 does not explicitly define "Presumption" but provides guidelines in Section 145 about how courts should approach presumptions:
- Section 145(i): When the Act allows for a court to presume a fact, the court may regard that fact as established unless contradicted by evidence, or it may require proof of the fact.
- Section 145(ii): If the Act mandates that a court shall presume a fact, the court will regard the fact as established until disproven.
- Section 145(iii): When a fact is declared as conclusive proof of another, the court will treat the latter fact as proven, barring evidence to the contrary.

General Understanding of Presumptions

A presumption can be understood as:
- (a) An assumption about the existence of a fact based on the established existence of another fact or a group of facts.
- (b) An inference regarding one fact drawn from another, based on previous experiences of their correlation.
This means that certain facts may be accepted as true without needing separate evidence unless the court calls for proof.
Usually, presumptions act as rules of evidence compelling certain outcomes in legal cases, unless opposed by evidence from the affected party.
In some scenarios, a presumption may shift the burden of proof or the responsibility to provide evidence to the other party, who must then attempt to nullify the assumption.

Classes of Presumptions

Presumptions can be broadly classified into two primary types:
1. Presumption of Facts (Rebuttable Presumptions): These arise when facts are indirectly established through the court's inferences based on already proven facts. The court has discretion in these situations and uses the term "may" in Section 145(1) of the Evidence Act, indicating that the court can either presume or request further evidence.
  - Example: This can be compared to circumstantial evidence, which refers to evidence derived from surrounding circumstances that allow courts to form conclusions.
  - Case Reference: In the case of Ogbuaninya v Okudo (No.2) (1990) 4 NWLR Pt 146. P.551, the Supreme Court regarded a presumption of fact as a logical inference deduced from existing proven facts. Courts can draw inferences based on the natural course of events, human conduct, and public and private business practices but are not obliged to do so unless stipulated by law (refer to Section 167 EA).
2. Presumption of Law (Irrebuttable Presumptions): These are legal presumptions made by law that must be applied when contrary evidence is absent. The court must adhere to these conclusions unless they are successfully disrupted by alternative evidence.
  - Presumptions of law can further be divided into:
    a. Irrebuttable Presumption of Law (Presumptio Juris et de jure): This type, set by substantive law, cannot be challenged by any evidence or argument. There is no admissibility of evidence that contradicts such presumptions, thereby making them definitive conclusions in court.