In presumptions of
law, the conclusions to be deduced from the given set of facts are
prescribed or stipulated by law and must always be drawn as the inevitable
consequence of these facts. On the other hand, where the presumption is one of
fact, the court may or may not draw a presumption of fact from particular
premises. The distinction between presumptions of law and presumptions of fact
may be itemized as follows:
a. A presumption of fact is one which
is dependent upon logical reasoning and which the court is free to draw if it
so likes. A presumption of law on the other hand is one prescribed by law, and
which must be drawn in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
b. The conditions of the application of
a presumption of law are fixed and uniform and in consequence, it alters the
burden of proof of an issue, whilst the application of a presumption of fact is
governed by the facts of each case and does not necessarily alter the burden of
proof.
Presumptions
of law are drawn by the judge whilst presumptions of fact are drawn by the jury
(or by a judge sitting alone).
©Onyekachi Duru Esq and www.legalemperors.com,
2016. (All Rights Reserved) Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this
material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or
owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that
full and clear credit is given to Onyekachi Duru Esq and www.legalemperors.com with
appropriate and specific direction to the original content.