Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

EVERYTHING IS PRESUMED TO BE RIGHTLY PERFORMED

Dictum

The maxim here is omnia praesumnutur rite et solemniter esse acta donec probetur in contrarium (everything is presumed to be rightly and duly performed until the contrary is shown).

— Onu JSC. Ibrahim v Barde (1996) – SC.74/1995

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

THERE IS A PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY OF OFFICIAL ACTS

If there was any short coming in the Exhibit F, that made it to fail to comply with the adoption laws of Eastern Nigeria, as alleged by the Appellants, that cannot, in my opinion, be the fault of the Respondent or his adoptors, Aduba and his wife, and would not discount from the presumption of its regularity as official Government instrument, authorizing the acceptance and adoption of the Respondent into the home of Mr. and Mrs. Aduba Nwaemere as a member of their family. In the eye of the law, the presumption of regularity of official act remains strong (See section 168 of the Evidence Act 2011), and so is Exhibit F presumed in favour of the Respondent. Again, equity looks as done, that which ought to be done.

– Mbaba JCA. Aduba v. Aduba (2018)

Was this dictum helpful?

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

The law has crystalized in our criminal jurisprudence that an accused person is presumed innocent until he or she is proved guilty. The prosecution is saddled with the burden of proving the guilt of the accused person and the standard of such proof in criminal cases or trial is proof beyond reasonable doubt.

– Adamu Jauro, JSC. Enabeli v. State (2021)

Was this dictum helpful?

COURT DOES NOT ACT ON PRESUMPTION

It is very elementary that no court acts on presumption. It acts on hard facts.

– Amaizu, J.C.A. Adeniran v. Olagunju (2001)

Was this dictum helpful?

GENERAL DAMAGES ARE PRESUMED BY THE LAW

General damages are what the law presumes, but they must flow from the type of wrong complained about by the plaintiff and they frequently result from the tort for which the plaintiff has sued. They are at large in that the quantum of general damages need not be pleaded and proved as they are supposed to be a compensation for the loss or inconvenience flowing naturally from the wrong. They are thus not quantifiable but assessable by the trial Court taking the relevant matters into consideration.

– Yahaya, JCA. MTN v. Ezugwu (2018)

Was this dictum helpful?

PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY OF JUDICIAL ACTS

This practice is informed by the presumption, reinforced by section 168(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (formerly section 150(1) of the Evidence Act, 1990), that provides that when a judicial act is shown to have been done in a manner substantially regular, it is presumed that all formal requisites for its validity were complied with. There is, in this further appeal, no viable complaint against the formal requisites for the validity of the concurrent judgments, the subject of this further appeal.

– Eko JSC. Chemiron v. Stabilini (2018)

Was this dictum helpful?