Presumptions

Question 1

Presumption

Answer 1

Section 18 of NRCD 323 defines a presumption as: “an assumption of fact that the law requires to be made from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action”

It is one of the devices which a court can use to pronounce on an issue without evidence being adduced.

Question 2

Inference

Answer 2

An inference is a deduction of fact that may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action.

Question 3

Presumption - Characteristics

Answer 3

A presumption may either be conclusive or rebuttable. Section 19 of NRCD 323 provides that where an enactment provides that a fact or group of facts is only prima facie evidence of another fact, that enactment creates a rebuttable presumption not a conclusive one.

Question 4

Conclusive/ Irrebuttable Presumptions

Answer 4

A conclusive presumption is almost the same as the rules of substantive law i.e. it is one that cannot be contradicted hence section 24 NRCD 323 provides that
“where the basic facts that give rise to a conclusive presumption are found or otherwise established in the action.no evidence contrary to the conclusively presumed fact may be considered by the tribunal of fact.
The court must first find the presumed fact to exist before it would prevent the adduction of evidence in rebuttal.

Question 5

Section 25- Facts recited in a written instrument

Answer 5

“Except as otherwise provided by law, including a rule of equity, the facts recited in a written document are conclusively presumed to be true as between the parties to the instrument or their successors in interest.
This provision seeks to protect the intention of parties hence what parties put in writing are to be taken to represent their intentions. Hence evidence cannot be admitted to contradict the terms of a document which parties have agreed to embody in that document.

People who reduce their transactions into writing usually ensure that all they want to apply to the transaction are stated in the document, they can then not subsequently try to impugn what they themselves have reduced into writing (this principle is akin to estoppel by deed which raises the issue of parole evidence rule). In African Distributors Co Ltd v CEPS, the supreme court held that the plaintiff company was bound by the contents of a written agreement which had raised conclusive presumptions against it.

Question 6

Section 25- Facts recited in a written instrument

Answer 6

“Except as otherwise provided by law, including a rule of equity, the facts recited in a written document are conclusively presumed to be true as between the parties to the instrument or their successors in interest.”

This provision seeks to protect the intention of parties hence what parties put in writing are to be taken to represent their intentions. Hence evidence cannot be admitted to contradict the terms of a document which parties have agreed to embody in that document. People who reduce their transactions into writing usually ensure that all they want to apply to the transaction are stated in the document, they can then not subsequently try to impugn what they themselves have reduced into writing (this principle is akin to estoppel by deed which raises the issue of parole evidence rule).

Question 7

Facts recited in a written instrument (explained)

Answer 7

This provision seeks to protect the intention of parties hence what parties put in writing are to be taken to represent their intentions. Hence evidence cannot be admitted to contradict the terms of a document which parties have agreed to embody in that document. People who reduce their transactions into writing usually ensure that all they want to apply to the transaction are stated in the document, they can then not subsequently try to impugn what they themselves have reduced into writing (this principle is akin to estoppel by deed which raises the issue of parole evidence rule).

Question 8

Section 26- Estoppel by own statement or conduct

Answer 8

“Except as otherwise provided by law, including a rule of equity, when a party has, by his own statement, act or omission, intentionally and deliberately caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, the truth of that thing shall be conclusively presumed against that party or his successors in interest in any proceedings between that party or his successors in interest and such relying person or his successors in interest”

*Estoppel by conduct is predicated on the principles of fairness and justice. **

Question 9

Pickard v Sears

Answer 9

In the case of Pickard v Sears, the court stated as follows:
“where one by his words or conduct willfully causes another to believe in the existence of a certain state of things, and induces him to act on that behalf, or to alter his own previous position, the former is concluded from averring against the latter a different state of things as existing at that time.”
NOTE: where fraud is detected as giving rise to transaction, estoppel cannot be invoked to uphold the transaction

Question 10

Estoppel by conduct headings

Answer 10

Estoppel by conduct is considered under 3 broad headings i.e.

• estoppel by agreement,
• by representation;
• and estoppel by negligence

Question 11

Estoppel by agreement

Answer 11

where a party consents to a situation with another party in a manner that induces the other parry to believe that what he has agreed can be taken to represent what he really intended to be considered in that agreement

Question 12

Estoppel by representation

Answer 12

where a person by words, actions or omissions, induces another party to believe in or to act on the basis of the existence of a state of affairs and that party acts on it to his detriment, the person will be prevented from denying the consequences of the words, acts or omissions

Question 13

Estoppel by negligence

Answer 13

i.e. where one party is the victim of some fraud perpetrated by a 3rd party on the basis of the breach of a duty owed by the other party to perform his duty and the victim, in the belief of the breach, acts to his detriment.

Question 14

What conditions must exist before estoppel will be applied?

Answer 14

a) The representation should relate to existing facts and not of future intentions;
b) There should be a duty owed to perform some act which has been breached; and
c) The application of the estoppel must yield legal results. It won’t apply if it would result in illegality or unconscionable behavior.

Question 15

Section 27-Estoppel of Tenant to Deny Title of Landlord

Answer 15

“Except as otherwise provided by law, including a rule of equity, against any claim by a tenant the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of their relation is conclusively presumed to be valid”

Question 16

Section 28- Estoppel of Licensee to Deny title of Licensor

Answer 16

“Except as otherwise provided by law, including a rule of equity, against any claim by a licensee of immovable property his licensor is conclusively presumed to have a valid right to possession of the immovable property”

From the provisions of section 27 and 28, a tenant or licensee who challenges the title of his licensor or landlord as the case may be forfeit his interest in the property which is the subject matter of the dispute.

Question 17

Antie & Adjuwah v Ogbo

Answer 17

In Antie & Adjuwah v Ogbo, the supreme court held that:
“the common law rule as to forfeiture by a licensee or tenant who challenges the title of his licensor or landlord has received statutory recognition under sections 27 and 28 NRCD 323. The law is that a licensee or tenant who denies the title of his licensor or landlord either by claiming that title to the subject matter is vested in himself or herself or someone else forfeits his or her interest” . thus the plaintiff who had directly challenged the defendant’s lawful claim to ownership forfeited his right to remain in the disputed premises.

Question 18

Section 29- Estoppel of bailee, agent or licensee

Answer 18

“Except as otherwise provided by law, including a rule of equity, against any claim by a bailee, agent or licensee to whom movable property has been entrusted, his bailor, principal or licensor is conclusively presumed to have been entitled to the movable property at the time it was entrusted; provided that any such bailee, agent or licensee may show that he was compelled to deliver up any such movable property to some person who had a right to it as against his bailor, principal or licensor, or that his bailor, principal or licensor wrongfully and without notice to him obtained the movable property from a third person who has claimed it from him.”

Question 19

Estoppel of bailee, agent or licensee (explained)

Answer 19

Here, if bailee, agent or licensee denies the title of the bailor , principal or licensor, he forfeits his right to the property, unless the bailee, agent or licensee can prove that he was compelled to deliver the property to a person who is better entitled to it than.

Question 20

Rebuttable Presumptions

Answer 20

A rebuttable presumption is an inference drawn from certain facts that establish a prima facie case, which may be overcome by the introduction of contrary evidence. It imposes upon the party against whom it operates the burden of producing evidence and the burden of persuasion as to the existence of the presumed fact. The test in applying rebuttable presumption is an objective one and the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities.