"This appeal turns substantially on the receipt or non-receipt of a letter said to have been written on 25/3/99 by the appellants and mailed to the respondent in her overseas address which the respondent denied receiving. Section 167 Evidence Act states that: "167 The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it deems likely to have happened, regard shall be had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business in their relationship to the facts of the particular case..."

In Ogbuanyiya v. Okudo (No. 2) (1990) 4 NWLR (pt. 146) 551 the issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal on the evidence before it was entitled to presume in the absence of the Writ of Summons, the existence of a Writ of Summons signed by a Judge which commenced the action in this case. This Court relying on Sections 148(c) and 149(1) of the Evidence Act (now Sections 167(c) and 168(1) Evidence Act 2011 while agreeing with the Court of Appeal that where a plaintiff has done all that is required of him in law to commence an action, he cannot be held responsible for every other failure attributable to official negligence.

This Court went on to say that the Court is bound to draw the inference where there is no evidence to the contrary, and further added that there is also the presumption that where there is no evidence to the contrary things are presumed to have been rightly and properly done which is expressed in the common law maxim in latin omnia praesumuntur vite esse acta. There is presumption that where a letter has been properly addressed and mailed, the letter will be presumed to have been received by the addressee. See: Nwosu v. Udeaja (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 125) 188; Amodu v. Amode (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt. 150) 356."

Per AKA'AHS, J.S.C.IN UNILORIN & ORS v. OBAYAN CITATION: (2018) LPELR-43910(SC)