A presumption of fact is the logical inference of the existence of
other facts. In most cases, it exists as an example of circumstantial evidence.
Again, a presumption of fact is an
occurrence of circumstantial evidence which inference may be drawn from the
fact. It is the logical inference from proved facts. A presumption of fact is
one which is dependent upon logical reasoning or deduction and which a court is
free to draw if it so likes. The application of a presumption of fact is
governed by the facts of each case and it does not necessarily alter the burden
of proof.
For example, under section 167(a) of the Evidence Act, 2011,
a person who is found in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is
either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to have been stolen.
(Thus, the presumption here is based on the fact of possession). Another
example, is that a man is presumed to intend all the natural consequences of
his conducts or acts; if a man, for instance, struck another on the head with a
heavily weighted axe, thus causing the death of the deceased, the presumption
is that he must have intended to kill him – Nungu v. R (1953) 13 WACA 379.
©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.