daniel apael urio vs exim t bank 2020 tzca 163 26 march 2020
The appellant failed to comply with statutory requirements for admission of secondary evidence and did not produce the original Term Deposit Receipt. Oral evidence cannot prove the contents of a document. Without documentary proof of the alleged fixed deposit agreement, the appellant failed to establish his claim on balance of probabilities.
- Citation
- daniel apael urio vs exim t bank 2020 tzca 163 26 march 2020
- Parties
- Appellant: Daniel Apael Urio; Respondent: Exim (T) Bank
- Court
- TZCA
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 26 March 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Fixed Deposit Agreements, Burden of Proof, Admissibility of Evidence, Secondary Evidence, Balance of Probabilities
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Daniel Apael Urio
Appellant
Exim (T) Bank
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial Judge correctly rejected to admit in evidence the certified copy of the Term Deposit Receipt
- 2 Whether the appellant managed to prove his claim against the respondent on balance of probabilities
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant failed to comply with statutory requirements for admission of secondary evidence and did not produce the original Term Deposit Receipt. Oral evidence cannot prove the contents of a document. Without documentary proof of the alleged fixed deposit agreement, the appellant failed to establish his claim on balance of probabilities.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- appeal dismissed with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment