This Court still invoked the natural consequence test. According to Katsina-Alu, JSC (as he then was), the law presumes that a man intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts. And the test to be applied in these circumstances is the objective test, namely the test of what a reasonable man would contemplate as the probable result of his acts. See Adamu Garba v. State [1997] 3 SCNJ 68.
— C.C. Nweze JSC. Amaechi Njoku v. The State (SC.424/2017 · 15 JAN 2021)
SHARE ON
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
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)
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)
It is very elementary that no court acts on presumption. It acts on hard facts.
– Amaizu, J.C.A. Adeniran v. Olagunju (2001)
When a rebuttable presumption of law exists in favour of a party, the onus is on the other side to rebut it. When any fact is especially within the knowledge of a defendant and upon which he would want to rely, the burden of proving it is on him.
— Muhammad JSC. Nnaemeka Okoye & Ors. v. Ogugua Nwankwo (SC. 234/2004, 27 Jun 2014)
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)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry