LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Jurisdiction of the High Court – Presumption of Regularity in Granting Leave
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where the steps required to be taken as stipulated in the rules are silent as to whether it should be in open court or in chambers, and they do not require the appearance of the applicant before the Judge nor that they be put on notice when the application is made by or on their behalf, the presumption of regularity comes into play.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"In the case in hand, as the steps required to be taken as stipulated in the rules above are silent as to whether it should be in open court or in chambers to wit: as they do not require the appearance of the applicant before the Judge nor that he be put on notice when the application is made by or on his behalf... the presumption of regularity hereinbefore referred to, comes into play."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The presumption of regularity (omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta) means official acts are presumed properly performed until proven otherwise. When procedural rules don’t specify whether proceedings should be in open court or chambers, and don’t require applicant’s presence or notice, courts presume: the procedure was properly followed, leave was properly granted, and jurisdictional requirements were satisfied. This presumption serves: avoiding unnecessary challenges to established proceedings, recognizing that judicial officers act lawfully, and placing burden on challengers to prove irregularity. The presumption applies particularly when: rules are ambiguous about procedural details, discretion exists in how procedures are conducted, or records show the formal step (like granting leave) occurred. However, the presumption is rebuttable—parties can prove irregularity through evidence. The principle prevents technical challenges to jurisdiction based on unspecified procedural details, while maintaining that actual irregularities can be proved and addressed.