20120809 TZHC Mwanza

·.... , . ··•.•- . ".' IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZA~IA . .COMMERCIAL DIVISION .. ..• · - __,.- AT MWANZA . . ;_ . ·· CQt-1-MERCIAL CASE-NO.6 OF 2011 ·- ·-.·:.·:. NJ:C BANK (TANZANIA) LTD ;: •'.i:.'· ::_: {Formerly known as SAVINGS AND FINANCE : ·:_: :- : COMMERCIAL BANK LTD) ....................... ~ .................... PLAI_NTIF.f .... '' VERSUS ·. /.·- . ~ =, ·•.. .... · .• ' .. ~ . ·.• •·•. ,r. :-. • • • l" • . ••• • ••• : •. . ·.-:oat€ of lasf()rdei:. ~:01.92/? 9:;t;~;<::·.\,.':-,.·. ~: : ·~ Qate ·off\na·I ·subm.iss.jons:;:O9/:03/2012 >.·_Dite·of RuHpg: :og/ci's/2.cit;~y) -:~. · -_ .- ·· :·:··\:::-~.-. ·- ~ ·-t:·}r~~·\::_-._-·-·'·}~:~·:. .:·_,.: •~-;. RULi~~ 4;:~-- _,:·: ~~,_- .-;,>,>·'. .. :· :: ,_; _ ~-:{?-l;~;:;\ .. . ';'.; ,1>.::< . -- MA-KARAM BA ':.' .-,.:. . J. -;~•- ·· 1··-·· ➔ , .._.,._>~\<"{ .... , ·, ,: - . ., .• ~: .-;>·..·- ~·. :·, In this matter th'is ::~ourt is being ask~dt . to 'determine whether a ' \ ~itness who did. not prep~te a dotµment, a 8~-nk Statement, may refresh ' ' : •:,... his memory by using that: document~. which is in possession of the Bank, ... . ._;... where the witness is empfoyed, althbugh the witness himself is not the . ~:·'. ~ maker of the document. This issue arose out of an objep:ion by Mr. Dennis ·. '. . Kahangwa, . learned Counsel . for· .. the Defendant.. . to the attempt by Mr. .~~:.. . . . ' . Donatus Richard (PWl), the Branch Manager of NIC::_Ba_nk Ltd (the Plaintiff) at Mwanza whiie testifying ih examination in ch.ief tc/refresh his memory by referring to a Bank Statem~-~t itu,possession ,. . of, the. Plai.ntiff's Bank. Mr. •·, Dennis Kahangwa, objected ·agai~·st·such course of action arguing that Page 1 of 17 .. PWl was not a maker ·of. the document he was seeking to refresh his . . . . . . . • : memory on by referringJo .it. Mr. Kahangwa argues ~h,at in terms· of sectio~.. 168 of the Tanzan·i~ :Ev~dence .Act, PW1 ~nnot ref~/::to-th.e document to> refresh hi~· m·emory .. Following the· objection this' Cou~ ·a~cordingly a~keci ·.... the learned Counsei ,\tJ make submissions on that point of ·1aw: ·Mr:~·:·;·, ~-,/::, ·: . . ·. ·. . .. _· ...:__ :·· >_.-~\.·~t . ·<~-~-~,:: BYAMUNGU, . made· submissions - for the P1<:1intiff ~- and M.r.~· - ··DENNIS·. . ·. · .-· .. ·.·. . ..... . ·, _: KAHAN~WA, submitted for the Defendant. /:)_;.: .•· .. · ·'.>,· ., ... .. ~ : As a way of assisting and directing .the submissions this Court frprr.ied the following issu~s on which the le~rne_d Counsel :by. consent premised , . ': ;.heir written submfs~!O.ri?1:namely: ... ':i{:::_;:,.·'. .... •. ~ ·. ·,-: :; ·. : ..-.:,_._.· ·..._;: - ~ ::_ : . . . {_,· . .,. --~_·: ;~:.~_-·-·.·_; ·.... -... __ __ ___ ~: ~: •<.".• ~•I.,.:.: :.:•(•~ •' •• °:: ••:-._: .: .. :• •-: .i :,:-'I .:•.:·;.•.:•::'~:\~• • ,_ ~• -,. .. •: •·. . •- ~~ <:•: ~~ •' L ·wh£;,{bet. a ·Witneis. -(l?ay testify'.: und~r,;/J;m/nation {r(; ):fifer. by : refreshing his" m~~oijl by referring. to. - ;'.. ' . --:·.: :·:.·:.·-· ..· .:· 't)·i.n:.·_;>~;;f i~; ,•·:.:/._,. . ·<. ~:made ·: . ~:) . . ·.;_;- . qfe.)A)ii!?"~lf : ··!;.:}~'.·/\': qt-:;' .... the time of the transaction concerned?· .-,:·:.-...;, : · ·:: <·_ ;.'·.- ::r·:.>·.\:... <.,-•; :':.:i 'd~ :,: ·. :'. . .. -·~>).:.·-:·· . ,, . . . . 2. Whether a statement. or ''any writing ma~e by himself at the time of the transaction,✓ includes any writing which is in the possession of the bank? 3. Why did the drafters of the /egis!Jtion. us,~ the word ''himselr and not a ''person" under st.t_ction 168 (1) of,the Evidence Act? The gist of the objectio_n qy .Mr. Dennis KahangyYa, learned Counsel for -··:... the Defendant is that Mr. Donatus Richar_d·(PWl) was not the maker of the Bank Statement he was seeking. to refresh his memory on ~ince at the time Page 2 of 17 •.· ..., ,,.· objection to any ·que$tion. asked by the court or to cross-examine any ·. ·witness :upon. any -.ani;wer given in ··reply to any ..such question. Mr . ' .··By~mungt.i, ·. rightly·, ·. su·bmitt~d, . . . .th:at as ~ _matter. of_g~~~ral . . . principle of. law . ·erishdned in sectioh· 1·76 of the Tanzania Evidence Act, ·either pc1rty: is not . ; ~ntitieci°.to ·_ mq~~ any objection on the question~:•-:set by Court .-during :.,.;;'\·/ :'.::ex&riij~~tl~~ :°jn chief:· The · Defenda.nt. is only· allowed to disqualify th~ ... . ·/':.:'':/··\Ni°tne·s:i·\ testimon_ies by ,-c~oss examining a witness. However, as an : ex~eptici~-to the gen~r~I ~uie! .it i~:only Vvith the leave of Court that a party · may be erititied:to .raise an -objectio:n on questions set by the Court . . .·: :·· ·-:_. :_.. th~''cburt tecqfd,· iti is:the-~Court· .whict,_,:alkt~ed. both learned.::'.··. . Ftdm •::._:-'~>t~b.0}7§~1-:\fo(:the-· p1:~j~i:&6::,:ir~-~e -6~·- the ··legal .iss~~~~;::~~:etgi~~i :~~Jrin~i;··:·_ ::· .•; _ ::·~~J~i~citJd~·JA·~ chiefTrA-.thiiburse ··.:,:<·'._··. '·.·. of arguirig;tl)os~~--Ihe· 1~·ar~ed' Cou~~el . ··. ···:-~ ".<·:·:~·~·-.....··:>··· ··. . . .. - .. _· ·.·. ·\. . . . fo_r tl;\e\°.O~f-end_a~f-.ql;)jeq:ed.-:tci :.the. Plaintiff's prayet.-tcf have his witness . ~:::· ·-.:,:·· . ···: .. ·· -~:· .:>·.- .··.. ~-. ·· .... ··:·· ·.,:.•·,_. .. (P\f\/;L}'refresh his memory on .a ·sank Statement. This Court accordingly ... : .~-.: -.. · . . .. --~. . ) granted leave to both learned Cou_nsel .for the parties to argue on those legal issues and the preliminary objection that the learned Counsel for the Defendant raised against attempt by PW to refresh his- memory by referring to a Bank Statement· on. Leave to entertain the preliminary objection was _therefore duly granted by this Court to the learned Counsel for the parties. In the course of hi$ reply submissions, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff has raised what seems to be a preliminary objection to the objection raised by the learned Counsel for th_e:. Defendant. The learned Counsel for the. Defenda~t had ~p-portunity to. reply but did not file any rejoinder. The effect ls .that he__ .:is:}ake_n ·-tcfhave conceded to what was raised by the learned Counsel· for the Plaintiff. I take it that the issues Page 5 of 17 - "' raised by the learned Counsel for the Plain.tiff raised in the course of his reply submissions,.vv,.ith regard to section 176 of the Tq_nzania _ Evidence Act. · • • • '. • • • • :, \ ~· - f • . amplify.on .the powers a judge has in the course· of_examfnc;1tf6'n· . .. . "\ . Let_ rri_e now tu~n to consider the substance· of -the objection the . learned Cou~sel for the-·Defendant_~aised on the .issue ·of a\-v_i{ness whojs. ·_:_ : not a ·maker of a ·doc~ment refreshing his memory by referring ~o. that·_ ·: •.;_~:,. 0: .. _, .t ,.·· document. Mr. Byamungu contends t;hat . PW1 . qualifies under . . section . ... ' . . . . 168(1) of the Tanzania Evidence· Act to refer. to any document possessed · · by the bank because the bank statement referred to is a progressi\/e and. ·dyramic document:: upd~ted on daily basis and: charges ·are cal2ulated · ·._·p~r.,;djcany- • ·::• ··u·h~~r /P.0:t's management ·;.~e~. . 0.lt~~ss; ..··bei~g the, -~ran.~tf/. /' • : •. . . . . . . . _ •• __ _._ ••• •· •••• '.4 •-'~·;; . . . ~.. • ·: ~-:··,;,....-.,:_:-:.;:_:~... ~---:·-~--- Manager in charge ·of the · Bran~h _that·· geflerateq ·_· the sta~e_m_ent.?::Mr. Binamungu fur.the/argues, .cannot~ .avoid. 'bei~g its(~c3-ker ~;r :~t· 'i~~i~ the same being made und~r his :_di(~cfip~_. Ttie·_ -b~~k·:·-~~~~;ds :~re .kept In electronic form and most of the ~pdate~ ~~e,: automatl~ :in response tc/the pre-set system under PW1's management and examining and updating of the bank statement is a dynamic and progressive duty of PWl, Mr. Binamungu added. Mr. Byamungu argues further that the_ word "himself" as used in section 168(1) of the Tanzania Evidence_ A~ refers to "witness' and not -· ! : : . "legal entity." A legal entity can only testify through its authorized officers conversant with the facts of the case on the entity's behalf, Mr. Binamungu . ·.. ·. . . : ... clarified. It is t.herefore not ·the officers· who testify but the legal entities through its officers, Mr. Binamungu surmised. ·n is illogical to allow legal entities to testify but prevent them from refreshing their memory on their Page 6 of 17 own writings, Mr. Byamungu reasoned and cited Sir John Woodroffe & Syed Amir AH's,·. Law of Evidence, Seventeenth ~.dition, Vol .. IV :Csu.pra). at pag~: 6206 thus: •· (i)Whe-,i:,the writing serves to revive or assist ,the memory of the . : , Nltness and to. bring to his mind-a recollection of the facts; · (ii) Where a witness recollects having seen the writing before, and though . .he has no independent recollection . . of the .. facts . \ mentioned in it, yet ,; :: rememl:Je~s . . ~ that, at.the ,• . - ·., . time . he saw it, fJe:.knew . . the contents. '. - . . .' . ,\.'.: .ti:Jbe correct: .:•:1 ·: .·:•.: " ,• ./. "'-: ; ;:'-:, .. :- . . -.;-,:· {iii)Vfher~ it brings tb th; mind o(the. witness/'. neither any recollection . . of the 'tacts ;,entioned /n it, ndr any recollection of the writing itself, but which nevertheless enables him to swear to a particular fact from the conviction of his mind on seeing a writing which he knows to be genuine; ·., In response to the submissions by Mr. Binamungu, Mr. Dennis Kahangwa learned Counsel for ·the Defendant argues in opposite direction saying that a body corporate is recognized by law as a person and this is in terms of section 4 of the Interpr~tation of the Laws Act, Cap.1 R.E 2002. It is an artificial or a legal pe:rson. Legal rights and duties are attached to the body corporate although it has to have a natural person to run the day to day activities and that a person will be held accountable for the actions of Page 7 of 17 . ,. ,.. the corporate body .. -The. legal person may only . testify · .tl\rough its .:•• . . authorized officers, ~r. kahangwa further submits; and adq t~at in ternis -· · of section 168( 1). p(t_he: ianzania Evidence Act, th_e ter~. -_".t,imselr1 does: not incl~dea_. t>odycorporate, as it has no capacity- ·to testify" or refresh its: '. memory in. Cowt rath~:r· i~i$ .through. :its Principa.l Offi~er~:i:·:-~r. K~;ha0.g·wa .. ·. -- of s~cti6-~. 8 of the. Intei~>etatiori: ~f_;~he . : ~->·: argues further that .by. vl~ue Laws Act; Cap. 1 R.E 2002, the word "hims~Jf"when used in ahy . ..:sfat~:te>>, .: '.' :;\ . . . . ., .,. • .. connotes or refers also to the feminine gehder-:but . .. 'does . not indude . ~-. . regal . ;. ' : , " •. - ~ :·· . entity or person._ According .:to Mr. Kahangwa _however, PWi_--does n9t· qualify to refresh~•.hi? memory ·in respect of the, dispute_d document _as he··.•· . .- :·- cl9.~;.':_ nof·)neefjB_~:i·9J_a.i•,ficati9n pre~c~i-b~d: 0:_~~~·r_-·-~ectio~·;:.168 (1} of· th~_.·: . ·: Tanzania' EVide~ce<iJ~:· .. ·. . wh. ic.h:Js. . . that ~ . . the staterr.j"_~ht~ ;'. ·: -~·- . . . '•. rn ust have: : ··been . .... ; . :m.'ade . . by himself at the time. of-the tra·ns~Gt:Jon ·or: soon -~ff'.~rwards.' Jn support of this contention, Mr. Kah·a~gwa cit~i,}h~ ~a~:/-~/~e~~d;~~c~, 2002, 17 th Edition, Volume 4 by Sir Joh.n ' . ~~~d-~~ffe and .Syed Amir Ali's commenting on section 159 of the Indfan Evidence Act (in pari matiria with section 168(1) of the Evidence Act of the Laws of Tanzania), at page 6205 thus: "Before a witness is allowed to refresh· his memory from any writing made by him/ the requirements of section 159 should be complied with. It must be shown that ~he writing was made by the. deponent at the time when: he ...examined the complaint, or ' •. soon after, that the Court considers it likely that the Page 8 of 17 e transaction at that time was fresh in his .memory'~ {emphasis is oft~~~ Coulj) _·_ · ·-: :; ' . ' . . '\ .· .. ' . .·-, . . _·,_ Mr. - Kah~.rig\¼a- -~~ubmits further. that, a witness> may refresh his :-: -._;·. ~em·ci:; ·: by.· -r~f$rri.hg 'to any writi~g. made. bi.<~·riy:;o't_her ··person. as per ..' :_,:·.. ~::·:s~cti6l).·6s(2) cithe Tanza-~la Evide~te 'Act,-·C~p.6 R.E 2002. According to ·/-> ·.- -~.\ ::::·.--~r/_· k~:h~rigwa, it is dear: th~t at the time when· the transaction on the _> ':/ :. , ..-_ . :-: disput~·d d:~~~ment \v~s~ ~atje, ·Pwt .was not an employee of the Plaintiff in -~ ' ' .. . :- : _ ·... ·w61ih: it -would _have been considered that :·at that particular time, the ··.: ...)\\Nitne·ssexa·mi~dt.-.knew '.,t to·be·cofrect·:~h~n.the facts.ivere fresh in- his,. ! . ·_, _.-:-mihd ': ~s •.it wai -~~p,ounde~f°i~\h·~' c~:~.e~--of. MA~CHI,[)A:_:{,j(g.iAi"i:'-'cig'/if::: ,WLN.>s·~t--:.(.Raj). -M:ry_~at,angwa also r~f~r.s :_.t6\i:iW~ ,:·.2ase "of RAM CHAND~A v~·EM~:ER(>JiJ\1~{19,30).'iah 37·9.-~:h~-r~·it was stated that: . .·.?·~·~ ·._: ,:_ .. . . . ·... -~.-:-." ' -~. .· _: :·. . . . ~ . "It is immaterial that :ihe d;;~",r,e~f to which the witness refers in Court was not printed by the' witness himself or in his presence. It is essential only that he should have read it at or soon after the transaction to which it .relates. // (the emphasis is of this Court). Mr. Kaht:ingwa submits ·further that, considering that PWl was not employed by the Plaintiff at the time of transaction, he had not had the opportunity to read the document (bank statement) at or soon after the transaction ·to·ok place. Mr. kan~:i°hgwa·:adds that·the writing can be used to refresh the witness memory only where it h_as been made at the time of Page 9 of 17 J> • the fact in. questim1. or:~at :the _most_ so recently afterwards. asj~i/ender it probable that the:_me~;ry ofthe·witness had n9t be~orne-'d~fe~lv~-- · .·; ·· -· .· _ ... :- '.The cpntrover·sy ·it'l thi~ matter revolves a·round.theil')t€rpretation' bf t ?· the pr6~:i5iOh5 6( secti.on. 168 of ,_th~ T~mzania Eyid_en~~-:.:_Act, .Cap.6 R~E:~- ._'.~_.- .• 2002, which stipulate~---~s;f~nows: :··:'.':::/. ,_·: ---... ::. ·_'.·.-. . ·-·. · - ···.. -.-:·.·:_. . . . .. . . ~ . . .. ·. . .-;. ~ . . . "168.(1) A witness may/ wh!'le ·under. examination refresh.· •his'.·_.-- memory by referri~g to any writi;,g made by himself at the. tiq1e· : ··. ·_ of the transaction concerning which- he is questioned or so so,o-r·-·~_-,. afterwards: . .. . that .· the cduit . . ~~ns,ders .. it likely that the transact/Of?. . . . ' . Jji>:· :.·. . iri:iz;:r tilnk i,/es.h in his ~;inory:- ·,• - ;'' .' ... ·, ~ .. (2) i· 1llitne;i~d?;y,: _w~i/e ·under examination/ refresh his niemoty·by referring to ;nv·:~;iting ;,ade· by:·~nJ- dther person'·,·~-i~lread by . . . . - . '. . ~ ; .. . the witness within the timf:-r~ferred_'tcilh ·subsection (Ji if when he ... ,·•.... . ..,. . read it he knew it to be correct I? {the emphasis is of this Court). The provisions of section 168(1) and (2) of the Tanzania Evidence Act quoted above in my view are very clear and unambiguous and do not therefore require any stretched interpretation by this Court 'The law allows a witness while under examination to refresh his memory. The witness can refer either. to any_ writing made by himself at the_ time_ of the transaction concerning which he is questioned or so soon afterwards that the court considers it likely that the transaction was at that time fresh in his memory. Such witness may also refresh his memory by referring to any writing made by any other person and read by the witness Page 10 of 17 • .. .. . . :: ··. ·.. - ... : .. ' within·the:·dme .of the transactiort"or soon aften.vards that the court · ...... ··c;o·hsiders_:·it.,Hk~1vthc:lt· the.~r~nsacti~n was.at that tirrie fr·e~h in his .men;,ory. . : .. ~ ' :· '. . . .. . ' . ... ... . . :: :_::, . ·. Both: le.a.rne<f 'Cot111$els are in agreement: that the· word . ."hlm~e/f' .. -~,-:::.·~PP~~r.ing. in .. $~-~io~:<i6~:':of the Tan~an-ia ·Evidence;:.Ac(~ited. -~bd~~~ does . n~t--.~E:f~rJ:o ~:.Jeg:~!/:~htity .or >'body_-t~;porate~· bti-t6 a ~' witness." This '.-~//pp'.siti~nT respe~ive:ly t_ake' tb be'.a·..':co~r~c~: re~·derlng of' the import ~-f the .. :. ·.,,' .· ··:<_;·~Ord '.>~himself" in s~ctiOrJ 168 (1).. of the Tan~~n-ia ~vidence Act. In the ·,· ' • . . . . . ··.,, · ..·' .: : co.ritext . .. in which the \.Jord .;,himself" is used in .that section, which is in . : .. · / .. '._./.r~i-9tion to refreshing· memory· through .a document or.a w.riting it therefore . _:_··-::.:.~?:,;i~t~nded t~. be. referring. to a witnes-s. -~~d ~qt t<J a lega{ :~hbty~. 1 also. seek >:· -·~coMfci~·•in. the words.:':re6-~sh··;;1; ;~;aor;/lin-that sectibk:f~?6Gttr~s; th~-.'' . pofAt·tb~i ·,q. legal· ~nti~-,do~s:.n~t.have ·a· memory··.J~-:.;;fu;.lf to' r~fresh. This can orily)rip·~en.throu.gh'.:its·d~:ly . . . . . ., ' . •. autho:r.i:Z~d· . offi~ef~~ -who have body, soul . and spirit as reposito·ry . of th~. .. m~motv:..~ ot,··behal·f of the legal entity they "' ·, . . represents. It is through tlie: ~evelation of that .memory that the legal entity is thereby bound. Furthermore, the term "writing made by himself" in section 168 of the Tanzania Evidence Act in my considered view, would suggest a:person capable of making a document or a writing, which cannot but mean a ~atural pers·on and not a artificial person. As I intimated to earlier in this rul_ing, an artificial person or legal person is not endowed with the capacity to make documents or writings for itself. It is only through human tieings, . . · who in the course .of concluding transactions on behalf of . the legal e·ntity are capable of' generating various types or documents and writings such the bank statement at the centre of the controversy in the present matt~r. ~ Page 11 of 17 II • '-.~ .- .~ It is· worth ·noting ·also that· the general principle :_as -~¢gards the common law, doctrin·~- of ·refreshing memory is.that a witne·ssJ{n.~t-allowed .. . . ' ..: ·_. . .. . : '..· ·:· .. ·:-.:... . ... . : , to read .from :his or,· ·her/~vide~ce in the· form of '.a· stat:errfenf or other-•:_:--.•._.· · dbcJrri·etit p.repareq_ }o(tbe. pVrp~se of litigatiqn. A :1i~~~i~: :is only :~1-100$di.~:::i{ ?. ·· . t9 · refresh. his merio_-;.y.:\~6tt/.. the :~t~.t~rde~t ·. !J~for~ :'~o_~i-h~;f ·h:F do0h'._itt/-_.-:_' . tes~ify.·I understand .-however:th~{ ·¼it~~~~-es-·often e~p~rience diffic~lty In'·:: . . ·:.->· recollecting the events to -which their evfdence . relates, especially' when .·-: : . ' events took place a long time ·ago.. That .is.· . why the l~w allows· .wit_ne'sses- · , <, . • • •.. .',. . I•. ••. ·•.1, _. . under examination in. Court to refresh their· memory by ·.referring to. a. _·. · :docµment made by° themselves . 6r'.from· the \rvriting -made by anoth;~~:.· -· - per;o~·IJ{.fi,~--- -time bf the tra~sa-ctid~, d'r so6n aft~~wards. This· comes· ou~•- ·. very clea.rly und~t·se¢tib.:~:::i68· (1) of the Tanz~'ni~·-Eviden~e -Act_qfthe laws. - "·\:·:·.-~.- :·· -· .·· ..· . . ' . ·. . .. ·.-_ : :.-. . . ·_ . ):_-~:··•·,• ...·:•:·> ·: of Tanzania, under which--a . :· witness . . may, while. : undet·exam·_inat{on/refresh ... ' . ·. ···,. : ._. ' . ' his memory from any 'wi-Itihg:::.:Jnade/ by hi.rnself .. at J:he_:.'_ time·: of the transaction concerned or soon ·aft~rwards that\he cou~ ~onsicie•rs it likely that the transaction was at that time fresh in his memory. PWl did not make the Bank Statement. He does not therefore qualify under section· 168(1) of the Tanzania Evidence Act to refresh his memory on the bank statement. In case the writing was made by someone else withi-fi the aforesaid time, in terms· of section 168(2) of the Tanzar:iia Evidence A<;t_it must have _ been read by the witness or read out in his presence with.in tne ·aforesaid time and known to him to be correct. That means, the writing·._must have been read out in the presence of the witness when the facts were still fresh in the memory of the witness and the witness had recognized the accuracy Page 12 of 17 , .. ;• :. .. ... _:. . . ,• . · 9f the wr(ti:rig:,as/te.ad· tO,-. him .. The main ·controversy :~urrounding section ..'.>"·•:····. ·• ....::·.;:-;,·::•·.~:,........· .· ... , •.. . . . . ·. : ' . . . :.--- il:6{~(2) oft:he:"Tahiarii,i: EVidehce Act. in .·so far c1s, the;.tirhe withiq which. it .·-· ·.-.~---;_.--c'ag,:~~ sai~-:th.~f:(~~-~ri.~_i_;ng· was stitl·. fresh .lnthe·.:_foe·~·o;y ci the ;~itn~?S, ·is,;,.,'; >... ,·. :'.~jff'.~~~tcj tti/;'t~f,'!lhiii\j hqW ''s~ irJon ~eii,rci{tThe 1avV·e~Joil1S ·.·.....• . · ":, ... tb~r,:cot:irf:td; 'deterrriine ·the: Jppset·.;of0:tim€3... whk:h::·. may< hamper:· witness: : ·._· .. >:,-__.: . ·:·memory ':seeking. tb'•.·r~fert~ a·.i·vVdtih•g·:~ad~ 'by ~noth~.'~ person to. r:~fresh_ .. --~ /:'_~ ·.::~.h-is M:e~o'ry While·u~der ~xam;ncition. This issue arises from .the ~hras~"''or :-/·ff./ ~~on: . .;'fi:enivards _tha.t the.- c~urt considers it likely that the . ·· ·_'.,:·:.:. :.>tii?·_,t;;_hsaci:ioh wa;;t-tha/'·1:;meir~sh in his memory'~ appearing ·unde.r·. . . . ·,·: ;----~~ction 168{2) . of 'the ·1a~z~nia Evfdeilc~,. -A_ct. The.: p-h~ase ."so. sopn : ;afterward~' therefo~e:.·i~. my·· .·view \~fe~i \6 .the tim~. ,'lapsei·-~~tw~h th~.·· : eventf ::thg\i~~:- r,~:;_:<bf'.'.\he:'.:'. d~cu;e&t<'.yYh f~t?:-:1rQ'~-~:i,.''be .a~ sh~-~ as -.~~ki possib°i~/,a/~:i~·oa-·~h_.i~h-·t~e:·:~QU~ c6.r1side.rs ·,t .:i"ik~(/:'that the transaction was at th,at_:'farii~·i'fr~~h ih>th~ ·wit11essi,~~mdry•; ·A :good example on time lapse is fo~nd ·in ··;h~ ·case 'bi ANDERSO~:. :_vsi,·w~ALLE~ {1852) 3 Car & Kir 54 where it was held that: ., " .... entries in a ~hip's· log,.book made by the mate and verified by the captain about·a week later could be used to refresh the memory of the latt.er." (the emphasis is of this Court). In the _above cited ·case, a week was . taken to be a ·s.horter . time within which e·ritries in . . ••. •. aship's log,-book made by a· shipmate··:and verified • I • . by the capfain_.·,tould be used by the captain to refresh .the captain's memory.-··rn· the· present case the Bank Statement which is at the centre of the legal wrangle relates to transactions concluded in 2007, three years before PWL was employed by the Plaintiffs bank, which was on the 2nd Page 13 of 17 .:• ...., ...... . . ·. ·:• :·, . -: _ ··: . _ . . . •.•,• .·.-. .. . August 2010 as per h_is tes_tiryiony. ·The issue is whethe"r.'.thr~~- years canib~.-- .., ~- s~id. to_ ·b.e "so soo~ -~ft~f?N;rds;-\_r a s~~rte/peri,~i/}f tj·rh~ _.for -t~a-~ ---~-- .·.-:· .~. .rpatter. for: the trans~dion· to, .stm. be. fresh- in th~ ·rn~imory:·of··PW.1. :Jt shoLJJd,·· ·. ::: ·- .:.- .-·:·: .. .-.·. :.- . ··-• ~--·:.•, ·. _.-,:·: ... ,-·";:-· ...... ; .:.:· ~ ··._· __/' ~-. : :·- :~_-. . ·-:····,• .. · .. _.,-_:::i~.'-- ::-~----. ····be noted here a·nd-as Mr.':Bir'lamungLJ r.ightly.submitted. a_.S_a:nk.StaterTJe'fi~'.is :::: · _:_ a dynamic docu~~ni:·A. . ~~nk .the)q(~:-:-◊r"~i~citd~{ic: S~at~i-knt':ei1~ts::l~ · data stored in .th~ Plaintiffs s~·n1t':~6~pJter sYste~::a~fd' -~hi~h::'.-~~h·:~i: ., . . . . . ~ . . . . . . .. .. . .. : ,. . . :- ,. : .. . reproduced at any time as printout ·_on dE;rnand.: · A bank statem·ent :as:--:-·\.- .. compute/ printout of electronic· data. ;s. _therefore· .a·- fo~m -o/-e1~-~ro-ni¢...; . ·documents which fal_l~ withln the b~o.a.der ·. category · of · Electron_it:'_:_; i. ·· .-_.· Information .,._ System ...... : . •:. , (EIS).· In this :'r_eg:ard . . therefo~e_<a Bank Statement ..•.. . ·.•; . . exists· ·: ', in the ~fe'ctroni¢. Jorrn from which c;omputer pnnto'uts .can' be _made' any time on dem~-nd ~~ci-iig'n~dib~-. responsible offi~er,s of.~~h~:issuing•i11stit0tion . \..~· ·.. _, ··:·;:: . ·-:_' ·. :· .,.-:; . :•···-~·:·_:.: ,.... · -. ·..·.···?/.--,-~. -. and in this regard the Plaintiff's -.Bi:?._qk._ It. wiU ;therefc;>te--.1~~: ·,~tr~tchlng .the ·. . . ·. " '' ' ...... : : :'· 1 ::, : . - . ' ....·.• :· ·_: ... ·:. _. ' ' ' imagination to try figure out af what pojnt irrtir:ne-can .a ·co'niputer printout of a Bank Statement be said to have been made or written. In my view section 168 of the Tanzania Evidence Act is_ still :lagging behind time of the recent amendments to the Tanzania Evidence Act recognizing electronic documents particularly printout of banker's books and evidence by videoconference. A Bank Statement being a computer printout of _an._ electronically stored data. i_n the -Plaintiff's Bank computer system is a dyn9 mic;;:. document which gets ~p:dat~d automaticaUy an·d,th~ref6r~this Court ~~d~·__ th~t three years in so far as a computer printout of such a dynan1ic docum~nt_ such as . . . .. a Bank Statement is concerned fits squar~ly within the category of "so soon afterwards that the court considers it likely that the Page 14 of 17 .• .. · ... ·/,' . . :· ·.·· . ..iia'nsaction !was :at that time fresh in .. his memory" under section • • 4 • ... '· • •• • · .· ·._;.,·~:6$(2) ~fth~-:i~~z~:riia •Ev_iq~~ce Act.--:PWl theref~re :qualify under. s~ction · '\.·. . ··:"_·:··.(1:08(2)_◊f:th~ TJ~.z~ni~-..E~idehce ~ctto, ~efre~~j,ts me~ory by;-r,efer~i~'g··t~. :, . ·y·::.:· :thg/~:atik. --St~tirilent; .I ·;h-ould. ,"pb,nt.-:-~u·t . hei~•,/ci;~f rpu,ch as th~. B~nk .· . . ·. ·:·. -~.-~:::,::- ·:. \.:' ,_.~ . : ·.,:· ...... ··.. ·. ~ ~ ._:,·.:·._·:.·:--·:<.: . ·.·:•:.. . · •,_ . -:·:·!:.· .· .. · Stat~ment-.-v,ias prepa~ed by an_other.pe_r_son. three years .before PWl joined_ .~h_e·· ~i:~-inaff'~ Bank_;: the. ·n,;t~re· ~f ~i,~·Barik Statement is that it gets to be . "\;<~J:bd-~ted . . . automatically by- ~he.'Plaintiff's . Bank computer systems. As . :such it . :_ ·: ·'.': wili.-not)ie fe·asib.le to.. ascribe. to ·_any particular person the credit of being - '. .·.. ·. :·:, / ._-'.trye··maker of the d.~cument or the writing. Iri my· considered opinion, PW1 :: ·iike any of the other em~loyees of the p·1brritlff's Ba. nk who prececled hlrn i~:: ·-. . . . .. . • . : ~ - :i. ._ : . ·... ! . . ~ charged wjth the mpnagern<=nt ·of the\affairs· otthe Pla,_in"tiff's Baril< including custo'mers'·,bank :statements. Each time· theO"lia~I<·:·s~atement gets to be .· :.::~-.::~·;~::'··.· .. . _··.. ~ .·.·~-::. . · . . . . ~ . . ,··:··.>:·. ·.·~··=·::···.-•. ~.-· updated ':a:utory,~tr~aJl-y by the Plaiqt,iff's. Bank cqmputer system, PW1 like the others wh.o\,receded··him·,. ar~ --~o-riverted ·,nto "makers" of the Bank Statement, if you wish. The memory becomes that of the computer and not that of the person generating the electronic document. I should however, emphasize here that I have taken exception to the general rule as regards refreshing memory as developed under common law in view of current developments in the field of the law of evidence in so far as admissibility of electronic documents is concerned which could not have been conternpl?Jted when th,e Tanzania Evidence Act- was received in the Territory by way ·of India. The law now recognizes as evidence computer generated_ o.r printout of electronic document such as banker's books. Otherwise this court is extremely cautious particularly when dealing with the issue of witnesses refreshing their memory by referring to documents Page 15 of 17 ., .... ·. · ..• .. · _'; . '. . '_'..: .... ':.•.. ••,:: . · ·.. or writing: _t.hemselve~- did not -prep~re so as to. i?V:Oid _: ruhp1ng the -risk of adrnitt.ing--h~arsay .-e0idence.·_.Aflowing_:·;pw.1 to ' . : ••.•••: . : - • ... : • .. ·•• ~:, .. ., • • .- • •._ •,. r~f~-to ~. do¢u.ment prepa;ed- : •, :•,~:•:••• ·• '~• •, ~. ~•-·• It, i.n 2007 or. 2008 while he was. not an--ernpfoYee of the Plaintiff's Bank to '. - 1 ·- _- . tef;esh .hi;'.rne.~ory s"t100~d hQt b~,,~:i~n:~fbp~ri1·hJ•::·tti~ ."p~-nd6;~,s: box" fcir:: .. a,,--sorts ~. of do~~m~~:t~{'cir w;ttihg~:·-ili·•·be:~aMitted:_.fcif'-.-pu;cis~s :·.-_: < . ·•::. :· : .. ,._--\.- _· .. : .-;~> .. · . ·.· .. · of ~emo&::!'._;; ~: .. ,' .- . :·•: ... :- :·.-.· ~ refreshing if they do not fall withln _the ·ambit·of the taw. The decision here:·.- -is limited only to refreshi~g merno~\;y':t~~rdng ·to: B~nk: St~te~~-n(.as :~ ·•. dynamic.document generated by computer_ syste'rli. · In the eveht and for the foregoing reas.ons. the preliminary objection · · raised ·by the learned Counsel for .the D~fendaht. f~ils: - It ·is her~-by ·:.· accordi~~1;;;ai·~~isse·c1 with cost!;~hi~h shall be 1n .th~ cause: ·-· ,., P~l: is'l~ei-eby illbwecl. to refer to the Bank Statement in possession of the Plaintiff's Bank, which \,vas· prepared in 2007,· to· r~fresh his m~mory. ;.· : .J :, • •• ;,·.. · . \ . - .. ~ : .:. • • • •• It is so ordered. , ..... •. ·_-,. .. . ~ R.V. MAKARAMBA JUDGE 09/08/20i2 t; • Page 16 of 17