Tanzania Court: Defective Jurat Amendable, Not Grounds for Striking Out

The Court of Appeal of Tanzania, in CRJE Investment (E. A) Limited vs Lark Hotel Limited (Civil Application No. 1841 of 2026) on 26 October 2026, clarified that a jurat must explicitly state whether the deponent is known to the Commissioner for Oaths, but crucially held that a defective jurat is amenable to amendment rather than automatically leading to the striking out of the associated affidavit or proceedings.

This ruling carries significant legal significance for practitioners across Tanzania, particularly those involved in civil litigation where affidavit evidence is routinely relied upon. It signals a judicial preference for substantive justice over strict procedural technicalities, providing a pathway for rectifying minor procedural errors without the severe consequence of having an entire application or defence struck out. For businesses, this means that procedural oversights in affidavit preparation, while still undesirable, may not be fatal to their legal claims or defences, potentially saving considerable time and resources that would otherwise be spent on refiling or appealing a striking-out order.

The legal context for this decision lies within the procedural rules governing the preparation and submission of affidavits, typically found in the Civil Procedure Code and various High Court and Court of Appeal Rules, as well as the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act. The requirement for a Commissioner for Oaths to certify knowledge of the deponent is a safeguard against fraudulent or improperly obtained evidence. The Court of Appeal, as the highest court in Tanzania's judicial hierarchy, sets a binding precedent for all lower courts, reinforcing the principle that procedural defects should, where possible, be cured by amendment rather than by outright dismissal, aligning with modern trends in civil justice reform.

The key parties involved in this application were CRJE Investment (E. A) Limited and Lark Hotel Limited. For practising attorneys, the takeaway is clear: while meticulous attention to detail in drafting jurats remains paramount to avoid unnecessary procedural hurdles, this decision offers a crucial safety net. Practitioners should be prepared to identify and promptly apply for leave to amend any defective jurats, rather than conceding to striking-out applications. This also means opposing counsel should be aware that a defective jurat may not be an automatic win, and courts are likely to favour amendment where no prejudice is demonstrated.