LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW — Presumptions — Regularity of Judicial Acts — Presumption of Compliance with Formal Requisites
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
When any judicial or official act is shown to have been done in a manner substantially regular, it is presumed that formal requisites for its validity were complied with.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Katsina-Alu, JSC, in Akpan v. State (2002) NLC-2092000(SC) at p. 5; Paras B–C.
"When any judicial or official act is shown to have been done in a manner substantially regular, it is presumed that formal requisites for its validity were complied with."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The presumption of regularity (omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta) applies to judicial and official acts. If the act appears substantially regular, the court presumes compliance with formal requirements. The burden is on the party alleging irregularity to prove it. The presumption applies to arraignment, plea taking, and other judicial proceedings. The principle promotes judicial efficiency. The court will not assume impropriety. The presumption is rebuttable. The party challenging the act must adduce evidence of non-compliance. The rule applies to both civil and criminal proceedings. The court will not require proof of every formal step if the act appears regular.