The High Court at Manyara struck out defective witness statements and dismissed the suit for want of prosecution after finding mandatory procedural rules were breached.
The Court of Appeal upheld dismissal of a commercial suit for late filing of witness statements, holding that mandatory procedural timelines must be followed.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, quashing post-trial proceedings because the High Court improperly allowed oral testimony after rejecting defective witness statements.
The Court of Appeal quashed a High Court order dismissing a suit at hearing, holding the trial court used inapplicable CPC provisions and should have dealt with witness statements properly.
There is no mandatory provision requiring attachment of intended exhibits to witness statements; documents properly listed and served may be tendered for admission subject to rules of admissibility.
The High Court struck out a late-filed witness statement and dismissed the suit for want of prosecution after finding no sufficient reason to excuse non-compliance.
There is no legal requirement for a certificate of authenticity for electronic evidence to be admissible; the law presumes proper functioning of electronic systems, and objections must be substantiated by the party opposing admissibility. Witness statements naming errors do not cause injustice and do not bar admissibility.
Paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 23 of the defendant's witness statement introduce a distinct cause of action not pleaded in the amended plaint or written statement of defence. Such matters cannot be introduced through witness statements or list of documents, as parties are bound by their pleadings to avoid prejudice and surprise. The objection is merited and the impugned paragraphs are expunged or not considered.