Electronic evidence in Tanzani

[ulimboka]

Hi JF i beg to be assisted on the electronic evidence Act in Tanzania. I have tried to make a follow up by visiting government bookshops in vain. I thank you members for the ideas on how i can be flashed a light on the same.

 

[ngoshwe]

Guy, be very specific on the area you're asking for....

Otherswise, you can consult this Article if helpful for you.

Electronic Evidence and Its Admissability in Tanzanian Courts
by Dr. Eve Hawa Sinare

Published May, 2007 - Tanzania
Submission January, 2008
[This article concentrates on electronic evidence and the law in Tanzania relating to admissibility of electronic evidence.
The computer revolution has changed permanently the way we do business. Contracts are concluded electronically, lawyers, banks, accountants and all others receive instructions for work electronically, accept instructions electronically and send completed work to their clients electronically and also invoice electronically, the banks retain data electronically, store data electronically and transact electronically. Electronic communication has become the most common means of doing business. Most, if not all of the banks in Tanzania, have clauses in their loan agreements which state that a statement of account produced by the bank showing the borrower’s indebtedness shall be a prima-facie evidence of the borrower’s indebtedness. All of these banks keep their records electronically. Everything is fine until the parties disagree and a dispute ensues. How to prove one’s case when the best evidence available is electronic?
We once handled a case in which every aspect of the business was done electronically, including the invoicing. The issue we had to consider was the admissibility of the documents, all produced electronically, and what other supporting documents and oral evidence we would need to prove the client’s case. We found, like others have before us, that the Evidence Act R: E 2002 as amended lagged behind the electronic revolution. We knew then that we could not rely on the electronic documents as the primary documentary evidence.

As at the date hereof (in January 2008), the law is that a document produced by a computer print-out must always be supported by other independent evidence. Nowhere this is apparent than in the banking sector. We will use the banking sector and the provisions relating to banker’s book to illustrate the point at issue.
The current Tanzanian law on the admissibility of documents including the admissibility of banker’s records was copied form the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 obviously before the use computers. Section 79 which deals with banker’s book states:
“79 (1) A copy of an entry in a banker’s books shall not be received in evidence under this Act unless it be first proved that the book was a the time of the making of the entry one of the ordinary books of the bank, and that the entry was made in the usual and ordinary course of business, and that eth book is in the custody or control of the bank.
(2) Such proof shall be given by some person who has examined the copy with the original entry, and may be given either orally or by an affidavit sworn before any commissioner for oaths or person authorised to take affidavits”
Fortunately the Tanzanian Commercial Court has developed the law by recognizing electronic evidence.
In a recent case Commercial Case NO. 4 of 2000 between Trust Bank Tanzania Ltd and Le-Marsh Enterprises Ltd, unreported) Justice Nsekela(then a High Court Judge in the Commercial Division of the High Court- He is now a Justice of the Court of Appeal) in his judgment touching on bankers’ books cited with approval section 5 of the English Civil Evidence Act which is reproduced as follows:-
Admissibility of statements produced by Computers.
(1) In any civil proceedings a statement contained in a document produced by a computer shall, subject to the rules of court, be admissible as evidence of any fact stated therein of which direct oral evidence would be admissible, if it was shown that the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) below are satisfied in relation to the statement and computer in question.
(2) (a)that the document containing the statement was produced during a period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period, whether for profit or not by any body whether corporate or not, or by any individual.
(b) that over period there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind of form which the information so contained is derived.
( c) that throughout the material part of that period the computer was operating properly or, if not, that any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents; and
(d) that the information contained in the statement reproduced is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities (see : Harsbury’s statutes of England , 3rd edition page 910,914).
The law as developed by the Commercial Court has yet to be affirmed by the highest court namely the Court of Appeal of Tanzania. This is nonetheless a huge step forward. There is still a lot that has to be done. The best that can happen should be the Parliament to amend the Evidence Act to recognise electronic evidence as primary evidence.
There is no doubt that electronic evidence will have its challenges, one of which is to address the question of how to prove the identity of an otherwise invisible unknown party in an online transaction and related to that who bears responsibility for liability to any damage caused to anyone who reasonably acted on the assumption that the data in the electronic communication was correct. The practice in other countries is to have electronic signature supported by electronic certificates issued by reputable entities known in an appropriate trade. In Britain such entities are the Chamber of Commerce or the Post Office. The certificate proves the identity of the party in the online transaction. It would be a matter to be discussed, which entity should be more suitable to issue electronic certificates in Tanzania if electronic signature and certificates were provided for in the law in Tanzania.
The amendment of the Evidence Act should address the issue of digital signatures and verification and use of digital certificates as well.

http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=35390

Get also and ARTICLE BY A. Mambi on ICT at http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...evidence+in+tanzania&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

You can as well buy TLS publication before the current one in which there are alot of useful articles on ICT for a less than Ths 20,000.

 

[Buchanan]

Open the attached doc.

 

[ngoshwe]

Open the attached doc.

Thanks Buchanan for this useful Misc Amendments Laws.

It appers that the amendments made to the EAT, cover sections 40, 76 and 78. It is however that the nature of electronic evidence which may be admissible for the purposes of the legal procedings especially in Banking transaction would require existance of other primary evidence to support the same (one has to refer back the usual records in the office to convince the court that the doc intend to be relied upon is in the daily books of record of the Bank!! that mean, will have to producing the orignal doc out of the e-version ??).

Also, for the purposes of admissibility, still in doubt whether the electronic equipemen such as a computer or server would be acceptable as evidence under Section 40A of the Amended EAT especially where it has been used to store information which are subject in the legal proceedings!!!.

The complication e-Evidence is that the one who wishes to rely on electronic evidence has to be able to prove to the Court that the contents of a particular document or data file created or existing within an Electronic Document Management System have not changed since the time of storage.

Also if the data file is an electronically stored image of an original paper document, he must also prove that the electronic image is a true representation of the original. Proving the authenticity of electronically stored documents is crucial to their admissibility in a court. Therefore, it may require systematic and uniform codified procedures for the Electronic Management System (acceptable to the relevant community/professional). This system I am in doubt with!!!

For some countries, electronic documents are well managed by following guidance from independent organisations/ institutions such as Standard Certification Bodies which are point of reference for the Information Management dispute on validity of document at issue.

These Standard Certification Bodies are the one also issuing Standard Codes of Practice for Information Management including the Code of Practice for Legal Admissibility and Evidential Weight for Information Stored Electronically. This is helpful to clear doubt in case of changes of the management system and to determine which authenticated or non- authenticated docs are.

I see there is still a loophole in our system.

 

[ulimboka]

Thanks Buchanan the article you provided have all i wanted. May God bless you

 

[Buchanan]

Thanks Buchanan the article you provided have all i wanted. May God bless you

All the best!

 

[Buchanan]

Standard Codes of Practice for Information Management including the Code of Practice for Legal Admissibility and Evidential Weight for Information Stored Electronically

Ngoshwe mambo ya electronics hapa kwetu ndio kwanza bado yapo kwenye infant stage, bado tuna kasafari karefu kidogo!

 

[mayenga]

Thanks Buchanan!

 

[George Jinasa]

Thanks Buchanan for this useful Misc Amendments Laws.

It appers that the amendments made to the EAT, cover sections 40, 76 and 78. It is however that the nature of electronic evidence which may be admissible for the purposes of the legal procedings especially in Banking transaction would require existance of other primary evidence to support the same (one has to refer back the usual records in the office to convince the court that the doc intend to be relied upon is in the daily books of record of the Bank!! that mean, will have to producing the orignal doc out of the e-version ??).

Also, for the purposes of admissibility, still in doubt whether the electronic equipemen such as a computer or server would be acceptable as evidence under Section 40A of the Amended EAT especially where it has been used to store information which are subject in the legal proceedings!!!.

The complication e-Evidence is that the one who wishes to rely on electronic evidence has to be able to prove to the Court that the contents of a particular document or data file created or existing within an Electronic Document Management System have not changed since the time of storage.

Also if the data file is an electronically stored image of an original paper document, he must also prove that the electronic image is a true representation of the original. Proving the authenticity of electronically stored documents is crucial to their admissibility in a court. Therefore, it may require systematic and uniform codified procedures for the Electronic Management System (acceptable to the relevant community/professional). This system I am in doubt with!!!

For some countries, electronic documents are well managed by following guidance from independent organisations/ institutions such as Standard Certification Bodies which are point of reference for the Information Management dispute on validity of document at issue.

These Standard Certification Bodies are the one also issuing Standard Codes of Practice for Information Management including the Code of Practice for Legal Admissibility and Evidential Weight for Information Stored Electronically. This is helpful to clear doubt in case of changes of the management system and to determine which authenticated or non- authenticated docs are.


I see there is still a loophole in our system.

Much as I agree that section 41 A of the TEA as amended is not broader enough to capture such alectronic evidences as virtual video and movies, it is my submission that the TEA in the same where does not have any provision prohibiting the admissibility of kinds of evidence not expressly covered therein. The guiding provision for admissibility of evidence in my view is section 7 of the TEA according to which evidence is admissible that which is relevant to fact in issue unless it is prohibited by the Acy or any other written law. Whether an electrobically stored piece of evidince is authentic or not, in my understanding is not a question of law. It is a question of fact that would be dealt with after admission of a document by way of cross examination and evalutaion of the evidence.

 

[chumvichumvi]

guys thanx much mmenipatia wat i real wanted thanxs much