LEGAL PRINCIPLE: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Delegation of Powers – Presumption of Regularity
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
By section 149 subsections (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act, there is a presumption of regularity when an official act is shown to have been done in a manner consistent with the procedure laid down or where the officer performing the function did so in a public capacity; these presumptions apply to the fact that a Board is a delegatee of Council; the burden is on the party challenging the competency to rebut the presumptions by evidence.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"By section 149 subsections (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act... there is a presumption of regularity when an official act is shown to have been done in a manner consistent with the procedure laid down or where the officer performing the function did so in a public capacity... In the present case, the presumptions under section 149 subsection (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act, apply to the fact that the Appointments and Promotions Board is a delegatee of the Council of the university. The burden is on the plaintiff, who challenged the competency of the Board, to rebut the presumptions by evidence and this he did not do... I, therefore, hold that the Appointments and Promotions Board had the power to terminate the appointment of the plaintiff."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Section 149 Evidence Act creates presumptions favoring official acts: (1) acts done consistently with prescribed procedures are presumed regular; (2) acts by officers in public capacity are presumed properly authorized. These presumptions apply to delegation—when a board acts, it’s presumed properly delegated authority. Challengers bear the burden of rebutting these presumptions by proving: lack of delegation, improper delegation, or board acting beyond delegated powers. Without such proof, the presumption stands and the board’s actions are valid. This serves: efficiency (avoiding constant proof of delegation), respecting official actions, and placing burden appropriately on challengers (who allege irregularity). The presumption reflects: official acts are generally proper, public officers act within authority, and regularity shouldn’t be proved in every case. However, the presumption is rebuttable—sufficient evidence of irregularity or lack of authority overcomes it. This balances: administrative efficiency against protecting against unauthorized actions.