Tanzania High Court: Dismisses Hearsay Objection in Civil Application

On November 4, 2026, the High Court of Tanzania, in the case of Daudi Kapungu and Another vs Festo Filison Kaminyoge, ruled that an affidavit explicitly disclosing an advocate as the source of information satisfies the requirements of Order XIX Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, thereby dismissing objections raised on the grounds of hearsay. This decision clarifies a crucial procedural point regarding the admissibility and proper drafting of affidavit evidence within the Tanzanian legal system. The court specifically addressed a challenge to an affidavit's validity, finding that the disclosure of the advocate as the information source was sufficient to meet the statutory requirements, thus allowing the affidavit to stand against the procedural challenge.

This ruling carries significant legal implications for practitioners and litigants across Tanzania, as it provides much-needed clarity on the acceptable standards for presenting affidavit evidence, particularly when information is relayed through legal counsel. By affirming that an advocate can be a legitimate and properly disclosed source of information for an affidavit, the High Court has streamlined a common procedural hurdle. This reduces the potential for technical objections to affidavit evidence based on hearsay, which can often lead to delays and increased litigation costs. For businesses and individuals involved in litigation, this decision offers greater certainty regarding the evidentiary value of affidavits, promoting more efficient and predictable court proceedings.

The legal context for this decision is primarily rooted in Order XIX Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) of Tanzania, which governs the content and form of affidavits. This rule generally mandates that affidavits should be confined to facts within the deponent's personal knowledge, but it also provides for statements of belief, provided the grounds for such belief are clearly stated. The High Court's interpretation confirms that identifying an advocate as the source of information constitutes sufficient grounds for belief, thereby satisfying the rule and effectively countering hearsay arguments. The High Court of Tanzania, as a superior court of record, plays a vital role in interpreting procedural law, and its decisions, while subject to appeal, provide persuasive authority and practical guidance for lower courts and legal professionals throughout the jurisdiction.

The key parties involved in this specific application were Daudi Kapungu and Another, as well as Festo Filison Kaminyoge, with the High Court of Tanzania serving as the adjudicating body. The specific advocates representing the parties are not detailed in the excerpt. For legal practitioners in Tanzania, the clear takeaway from this ruling is the imperative to meticulously draft affidavits, ensuring that any information not within the deponent's direct personal knowledge is properly attributed to its source, especially when that source is an advocate. This practice will ensure compliance with Order XIX Rule 3(1) and significantly reduce the likelihood of successful hearsay objections. Attorneys should integrate this clarification into their affidavit drafting protocols to enhance the robustness of their evidentiary submissions and to navigate procedural challenges more effectively.