MZUMBE UNIVERSITY (MU)

FACULTY OF LAW
COURSE : LL.B II

SUBJECT : LAW OF EVIDENCE I

SUBJECT CODE : LAW 222

LECTURER NAME : MR. C. KILONZO

NATURE OF LAW : GROUP ASSIGNMENT

PARTICIPANT : STREAM C GROUP NO 2

NO NAME OF STUDENTS REGISTRATION NO.

01 LUKIO ERNEST KAJIRU 1236135/T.22
02 IBRAHIM SAID 1236157/T.22
03 WITNES R. MWAKANSOPE 1236100/T.22
04 SARAFINA B. MAGABE 1236104/T.22
05 MARYCIANA MABULA MACHEMU 18313077/T.22
06 SILVIA LALI MWAISE 1236101/T.21
07 DOREEN G. MAWALLA 1236136/T.21

QUESTION;

The ‘Best Evidence Rule’ as then applied was as strict as, “a party must
produce the best evidence that the nature of the case would allow.” The
ancient logic behind this rule was later modified to allow admissibility of
the-would be ‘secondary evidence.’ Supported with scholarly works and case
law, discuss:
a) The ancient scope of application of the ‘Best Evidence Rule.’
b) The rationale behind its ancient strict nature.
c) The logic behind relinquishing its ancient strict nature and,
exceptions it admits today.
d) In your work, comment on the significance of evidence in dispensation
of justice.
1.0 INTRODUCTION

a) The ancient scope of application of the ‘Best Evidence Rule’.

The best evidence rule has its origins in the 18 th century under British law, it is developed
when the evolution or establishment of copy machine and computers, at that time when
copies would be rewritten by hand and hence more vulnerable to inaccuracies. 1 In the case
Omychund, v Barker2 Wherein lord Harwicke stated that, “no evidence was admissible unless
it was the best that the nature of the case will allow.”

The best evidence rule is a legal principle that holds an original of a document, records,
writing and photograph as superior evidence. The rule specified that secondary evidence,
such as a copy or facsimile, would be not admissible if an original document exists and can
be obtained.3

As a rule, proof content of a document is by way of bringing the document itself in its
original form and the court will inspect it. Section 64 of 4 defines what Primary evidence
means and reflects the Best evidence Rule, the document itself produced for court’s
inspection, section 66 of5 stated that the evidence must be proved by primary evidence. The
Act requires that ordinarily the original should be produced, because a copy may contain
omissions or mistakes of a deliberate or accidental nature.

The general rule is that a party seeking to rely upon the contents of a document must adduce
primary evidence of those contents. The rule, often regarded as the only remaining instance
of the ‘best evidence rule’ under which a party must produce the best evidence that the nature
of the case will allow, may be justified as a means of reducing the risks of fraud, mistake, and
inaccuracy which might result from proof by either production of a copy of a document or
oral evidence of its contents. There are three recognized categories of primary evidence of the
contents of a document, the original, copies of enrolled documents, and admissions made by
parties. The best kind of primary evidence is the original document in question. Although the
original is usually identify able with ease, some cases do occasion difficulty. Where
documents are produced in duplicate, each of them may constitute an original. Thus, the
duplicates of a deed, which have been executed by all parties, are all originals. 6 It remains to

1
https//;en.m.wikipedia.org, (best evidence rule), 16:30,13rd December 2023.
2
(1780) 1 atk, 21,49;26 ER 15, 33
3
The modern law of evidence, ninth edition, Adrian keane & Paul McKeon, oxford 2012, UK. Pg. 257 -258.
4
The Evidence Act [CAP 6 R.E 2022]
5
Ibid
6
Forbes v Samuel [1913] 3 KB 706.
note that the general rule does not apply when the contents of a document are referred to
merely in order to identify it. Thus, it has been said that ‘in an action of trover for a
promissory note, the contents of the promissory note may be stated verbally by a witness’.7

2.1 The rationale behind strict nature of Best Evidence Rule.

According to Chief Baron Geoffrey Gilbert (c.1726)8, explained best evidence rule to mean The first
therefore, and most signal Rule, in relation to Evidence, is this, That a Man must have the utmost
Evidence, the Nature of the Fact is capable of; For the Design of the Law is to come to rigid
Demonstration in Matters of Right, and there can be no Demonstration of a Fact without the best
Evidence that the Nature of the Thing is capable of; less Evidence doth create but Opinion and
Surmise, and does not leave a Man the entire satisfaction, that arises from demonstration. The Best
Evidence Rule, also known as the original document rule, is a legal principle that requires the best
available evidence to be presented in court when proving the content of a writing, recording, or
photograph. This rule is based on the belief that the original document provides the most accurate
representation of its contents and should therefore be used as evidence in legal proceedings.
Geoffrey’s rationale for the Best Evidence Rule is rooted in the principles of authenticity, accuracy,
and reliability.

Best Evidence Rule This rule originated in 1800`s it denotes that when evidence such as a document
or recording is presented, only the original will be accepted unless there is a legitimate reason that
the original cannot be used. So the best evidence rule requires that “When a party seeks to prove
the contents of a writing, recording or photograph that is in dispute, the writing, recording or
photograph must be proved by production of the original, except when the production is excused as
provided in the article”.For instance, in Garton v. Hunter9, Lord Denning stated that; A party must
produce the best evidence that the nature of the case will allow, and that any less good evidence is
to be excluded. If an original document is available on one`s hands, must produce it and cannot be
allowed to give secondary evidence by producing a copy. Requiring best evidence ensures that
litigants provide evidence that will best facilitate a courts task of accurately resolving disputed issues
of fact10.

In the case of Selemani Makumba v. Republic11, it was satisfied the use of Best Evidence Rule, as the
victim`s evidence sufficiently established that the appellant had carnal knowledge of her at Mbagala
and later Mbondole. In adition he was satisfied that the victim proved that there was penetration of
her father`s male organ into her female organ which evidence was supported by PW5 who medically
examined her and found that.

Also in the case of Kajala v. Noble12,Ackner, LJ emphasized about best evidence rule by saying that
`The old rule, that a party must produce the best evidence that the nature of the case will allow, and
that any less

7
Adrian keane & Paul McKeon,’The modern law of evidence’, ninth edition, oxford 2012, UK. Pg. 258.

8
1. G. GILBERT, THE LAw OF EviDENCE 3-4 (1st ed. 1754).
9
[1969] 1 All ER 451
10
Nance A. D., (1988) Civil Litigation and Evidence, Evidence in Civil and Criminal Cases: The Best Evidence
Principle, 73 lowa L. Rev 227.
11
[2006] TLR 379
12
(1982) 75 Cr App R 149 (DC)
good evidence is to be excluded, has gone by the board long ago. The only remaining instance of it is
that, if an original document is available in one's hands, one must produce it; that one cannot give
secondary evidence by producing a copy. Nowadays we do not confine ourselves to the best
evidence. We admit all relevant evidence. The goodness or badness of it goes only to weight and not
to admissibility . . . In our judgment, the old rule is limited and confined to written documents in the
strict sense of the term, and has no relevance to tapes or films.' Simply The Best evidence rule
applies in some the following situations. As the rational of the best evidence rule includes as follows
water down by Geoffrey to the journal of law of Evidence.

2.1.1 The best evidence rule is used to avoid possibilities of fraud. To find the best evidence rule but
due to fraud and the mishandling of evidence this rule was created so it helps to prevent anyone
from trying to mislead or even lie about a certain piece of evidence. So the best evidence rule was
implement in order to avoid fraud of the original document from the parties in the case in order to
prove the original document13.Also the best evidence rule implemented to eliminate anyone from
having guess it in fact that the evidence is from the actual original copy of if some party of the
evidence had been changed at same point in order to get a guilty or innocent verdict in the case.
Also the witness used the evidence found in tapping in court as evidence in order to get a guilty
verdict14

This simply means that when commencing or providing the evidence shall not be fabricated or mis-
informed. That it has to be originally said from the person who is saying the evidence that in other
words was not duplicated from other evidence and that the information given is not mis- informed
from another party.

2.1.2When giving or providing the best evidence rule Authenticity and Accuracy. Geoffrey’s
perspective on the Best Evidence Rule emphasizes the importance of authenticity and accuracy in
legal proceedings. He argues that using original documents as evidence ensures that the information
presented in court is genuine and unaltered. By requiring the presentation of the original document,
the Best Evidence Rule aims to prevent potential inaccuracies or misrepresentations that may arise
from copies or secondary sources. This approach aligns with Geoffrey’s belief that upholding
authenticity and accuracy is essential for fair and just legal outcomes. In the case of D. Hussein v
Republic15no writing can be received in evidence as a genuine writing until it has been shown to be
genuine unless there is a specific presumption on the same.

2.1.3 The Best Evidence Rule has to be reliability and trustworthiness. In addition to authenticity and
accuracy, Geoffrey underscores the significance of reliability and trustworthiness in legal matters. He
asserts that original documents are inherently more reliable than duplicates or hearsay evidence.
According to his rationale, relying on the best available evidence enhances the credibility of legal
proceedings and minimizes the risk of presenting misleading or manipulated information. By
prioritizing the use of original documents, Geoffrey aims to uphold the integrity of the legal system
and promote confidence in the evidence presented during trials.

Best Evidence Rule helps in the necessary of the trial.

If settlement of a dispute does not occur and the consequent litigation is not voluntarily or
involuntarily dismissed or summarily determined a trial becomes necessary. It is a regrettable
necessity, for a tribunal must be convened, drawing heavily upon the time, money, and energy of

13
Adrian Keane and Paul McKeown, The Modern Law of Evidence 9th Edition (2011). Oxford University Press.
14
Ibid.
15
(1975) LRT. no 45
various members of society, including those composing the tribunal itself. These people professional
and lay, are due the litigants' respect. The decision makers in particular are due special consideration
in view of the gravity of their responsibilities. Moreover, litigants owe their opponents a special duty
similarly informed by the pragmatic consequence of the litigation. The determination of the
employment of the state's coercive and authoritative power. These duties of respect generate for
the litigants an obligation to give reasonable assistance to the tribunal in the performance of its
tasks at trial16.

2.1.4 Best evidence rule is applied to be preservation of context and detail. Geoffrey’s rationale for
advocating the Best Evidence Rule also centres on preserving the context and detail contained
within original documents. He contends that original writings, recordings, or photographs capture
nuances and specifics that may be lost in copies or summaries. By mandating the presentation of
original evidence, Geoffrey seeks to ensure that courts have access to comprehensive and unaltered
information, enabling them to make well-informed decisions based on a complete understanding of
the facts at hand.

2.2 The logic behind relinquishing the ancient strict nature of Best Evidence Rule and
the Exception it admits today.

The best rule applies when a party wants to admit the contents of a writing, recording or
photograph at a trial and the rule provides that the original document must be provided as
evidence, unless the original is lost, destroyed or otherwise unobtainable, in case the
original is unavailable, a party must produce a valid reason, and if the court finds the reason
provided by a party acceptable, then the party is allowed to use secondary evidence to
prove the contents of the document and have it as admissible evidence.17

2.2.1 The logic behind Best Evidence Rule relinquishing it's ancient strict nature.

2.2.1.1 One of the logic behind is to allow a party to a case to be able to use secondary
evidence on proving the case when the original document is either lost destroyed or
otherwise unobtainable and this can be allowed if the court is satisfied itself with the
explanation given by the party,18 supporting with the case of Edward Mwakamela v. R19 in
this case it was provided that "secondary evidence to be admissible must comply with
provisions of section 67 of The Evidence Act" also under section 67(1)(c) of the Evidence
Act20, provides that" secondary evidence may be given when the original has been destroyed
16
Nance, Dale A., "The Best Evidence Principle" (1988). Faculty Publications. 463.
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications/463 at 9:07pm
17
www. Law. Cornell Edu. obtained on December 12, 2023 about 9; 31 AM.
18
Ibid.
19
(1987) TLR, 121.
20
[Cap 6. R.E 2022].
or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its content cannot, for any other reason not
arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time."

2.2.1.2 Another logic behind of relinquishing it's strict nature is to allow a party who is
simply trying to prove an event of fact that is memorialized in a writing, recording or piece of
photographic evidences. For example, a witness may testify that she provided payment to a
party without entering a receipt for the payment into evidence, at this point the witness is
not testing to what the receipt says, the witness has the independent basis to prove
payment which is through testimony that she made the payment, in this kind of situation
the fact that payment can also be proven by entering the receipt into evidence does not
mean that the best evidence rule requires the receipt to be entered. 21

2.2.2 The exemptions that the Best Evidence Rule admits today.

2.2.2.1 When all originals are Lost or destroyed and not by the party offering the evidence
acting in bad faith. This is one of the exception were by is provided only when the original
document is lost or destroyed without the involvement of a party, the quality of evidence
required to show the loss or destruction varies according to the nature and value of the
document in question,22 example a spouse in a divorce proceeding wants to prove the
contents of a drafted letter that she read on the laptop that was written by the other
spouse, even though she wants to prove these contents the house was destroyed when was
damaged in a flood, since the spouse offering the letter was not at fault of destroying the
laptop, and the original letter could not be obtained because it only existed on the laptop,
the best evidence rule does not prevent the spouse from offering other evidence such as
her testimony to prove what the letter said, section 67(1)(c) of the Evidence Act, 23 talks
about original document when destroyed or lost, In the case of St Sobha Rani V Ravi Kumar
& Others,24 The court held that" The existence of document of document was proved from
facts mentioned in plaint and reply of defendant order allowing plaintiff to lead secondary
evidence”.

21
Http: // lawshelf. Com obtained on December 14, 2023 about 15: 35 pm.
22
Pg 260.
23
[Cap 6. R.E 2022].
24
(1987) TLR, 121.
2.2.2.2 When the party who the original document would be offered against had control of
the original, and was put on notice that the original would be a subject of proof at the trial
or hearing and fails to produce it, this is also another exception were by best evidence rule
cannot be applied, a party seeking to rely upon a document may prove its content by
secondary evidence if the original is in the possession or control of another party in the
proceeding who having been served with a notice to produce it has failed to do so, 25 at this
point the party may be the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, also
may be a person out of rich of the process of the Court, also may be a person legally bound
to produce it this is according to section 67(1)(a) (ii),(iii)26.

2.2.2.3 When the production of original document is impossible, Secondary Evidence will be
admissible where the actual production of the original is impossible ,for example where the
document takes the form of an inscription on a tombstone or a wall,27 For example in the
case of Owner V Bee Hive Spinning Co. Ltd,28 The same principle was applied to a notice
giving particulars of mealtimes in factory ,which by statute was obliged to remain affixed to
the wall of a particular place, and so was " legally impossible" to produce.in this question of
production of public documents .Although such documents would relay ,if ever be
impossible to produce, the production of the original would almost always be a matter of
very great inconvenience and difficulty.

2.2.2.4 When the original is a public document, under section 67(1)(e) of the Evidence Act29
a secondary evidence of its contents are admissible under this clause, In this case secondary
evidence is admissible even when the original is in existence, this exception is based upon
the consideration of conveniences. In the case of Marwari Kumhar V Bhagwan Puri Guru
Ganesh Puri,30 It was held by the suprime court that "Ordinary copy of the judgement which
is public document is admissible in evidence when the case of the party was that original
was no longer available in courts record the certified copy was lost has not been
disbelieved" Thus if original document has been lost or destroyed then the secondary
evidence can be given of public document. Also consider this Illustration, foristance there is
a controversy between A and B as to the ownership of a certain plot of land, the ownership
of the plot is recorded in the settlement papers, any of the parties can take the certified

25
Pg 259
26
[Cap 6. R.E 2022].
27
Emson, R evidence (2004) 2nd Ed published by Palgrave MacMillan, New York pg 524.
28
(1914) 1 KB 105.
29
[Cap 6. R.E 2022].
30
AIR 2000 SC 2629.
copy of the settlement record and file it before the court, in this case the copy will be
admitted in the evidence without summonsing for the original.
2.2.2.5 When the existence or contents of the original have been admitted, in this clause
when the existence or contents of the original deed has been proved to be admitted in
writing by the person against whom it is sought to be proved or by his representative in
interest, the original need not be summoned and contents of a document may be proved by
secondary evidence. This presented clause provides that a written admission is admissible as
proof of a document even though the original is existence and might be produced but it is
not be produced but itis not done so .In such cases only the written admission may be
proved ,Oral admission cannot be proved,31 This provided under section 67(1) (b),32 In the
case of Iaw Das (dead) through L.R. V Sohandas (dead) through L.R,33 in this case there was
the question of proof of mortgage dee, The execution of mortgage deed not specifically
denied by defendant. It was therefore not necessary to call attester into witness box. The
defendant mortgagee refusing to file original deed. There upon the plaintiff filing certified
copy as secondary evidence. It was sufficient proof of execution of mortgage deed.

2.2.2.6 When the Original is not easy movable, when the original is of such a nature as not
be easy movable, the secondary evidence of the contents of the document may be allowed.
In this case the secondary evidence is admissible on account of great inconvenience and
impracticability of producing the original. Therefore inscription on wall, monument, survey
work and the like are proved by copies or orally testimony,34 Under section 67 (1)(d),35
provides this exception. For example consider the following Illustration, "A " sues "B" for the
possession of a piece of land alleging that it belongs to him "B "contends that the land
belongs to him and has been in their possession from time of his ancestors, an old Pucca
well is found on the land, Just above the surface of water there is a stone fixed in the wall of
the well bearing the name of an ancestor of "B" and the year in which the wall sank "B"
wants to prove the contents of the writing before the court to prove that his ancestors
were the owners of the well on the land, now the primary evidence would be the
production of the very stone with the inscription on it before the court , but this will be a
very difficult job and if the court compels the production of the stone, the wall itself may be
ruined, So here the original cannot easily be moved and therefore evidence of a man who
can read the inscription will be allowed, such things are written on it.
2.3 Significance of Evidence in dispensation of Justice.
2.3.1 Help the court to determine the relevant fact to be admissible. It is a trite of the law
that not all facts are relevant, but a relevant fact is those fact which is related or connected
to the fact in issue or which rise contemporaneous with the fact in issue, the relevant fact

31
L, Batuk,, The Law of Evidence 5th Ed 2001 published by Universal Law Publishing Co. Ltd pg 265.
32
[Cap 6. R.E 2022].
33

34
L, Batuk,, The Law of Evidence 5th Ed 2001 published by Universal Law Publishing Co. Ltd pg 266
35
[Cap 6. R.E 2022].
may prove the existence or non-existence of the fact in issue,this is pointed out under
section. 7 up to 18 of the Evidence Act.36
Evidence provides forms which are equally admissible and testimony whether to the factum
probandum or the facta probantia37
2.3.2 It provides the forms of relevant fact which are equally admissible and the testimony of
this forms of evidentially facts, may whether be a factum probandum or the facta probantia.
For that reason this forms of evidence may needs to be proved, and when is proved maybe
equally admissible as evidential facts which proof another fact, fact probantia. So, this two
forms are equally admissible and originates from the testimony of the provision of evidence.
As provided in the case of Mawethu Ngxito & Sivuyile Xhantini v. Minister of Police &
Mohakare Local Municipality 38 , the court provided that, facta probanda and facta probanda
and facta probantia is a further aspect of the requirement that material facts only be
pleaded, facta probanda should be distinguished from pieces of evidences (fanta probantia)
required to prove the true facta probanda. For that reason, there is the needs to distinguish
factum probandum from facta probantia on which all the two must be proved by evidence.
The case was on the effect that factum probans and Factum Probandum is equally
admissible when is proved. For that reasons evidence that proves a particular facts is very
significance in dispensing of justice.
2.3.3 Evidence proof or disproof the fact in issue. In the provision of evidence, is very
significance as it prove or disprove the fact in issue. The court in answering the fact in issue
or the court question indetermination of the case, the parties is there to provides evidence
as to one party proof the fact in issue and the defence party disprove the fact in issue. This
is essential for the court to determine the relevant fact. As provided in the case of Sikujua
Idd v. R 39 , the applicant provides evidence to disprove the liability of murder while Republic
in the other side provided evidence to prove existence of fact in issue as to whether the
applicant committed murder.
2.3.4 Evidence helps in Judicial proceedings as a part of argument and inference where by
the court is informed as to the issues of fact as ascertained by the pleadings 40 This is
provided in the English case of Dunne v. Governor of Clover hill Prison 41 , for that reason
evidence is very significance in building the Judicial argument in different proceedings which
mutatis mutandin in the case of Musanga Ng'andwa v. Chief Japhet Wanzagi and eight
others 42 , Judge Rweyemamu used difference evidence or argument tendered in the written
statement of defense to constitute the judicial argument to determine the matters of fact.
At this case Judge Rweyemamu defined the cause of action basing on the arguments of the
defense council.

36
[ CAP 6. R:E 2022]
37
Sweet & Maxwell, Phipson on Evidence, (17th, THOMSON REUTERS, England, 2010) p. 7
38
Case No. 139 [2019] HC South Africa
39
Criminal Appeal No. 484 of 2019 the High court of Tanzania at Bukoba (unreported)
40
Sweet & Maxwell, Phipson on Evidence, (17th, THOMSON REUTERS, England, 2010) p. 7
41
[2008] IEHC 16
42
[2006] TLR 351
2.3.5 Evidence enables the court to determine which kind of judicial style and reasoning
maybe applied to entertain the case exhaustively .According to the evidence which maybe
incurred before the court, may help the Court to determine which kind of judicial reasoning
and style maybe used to entertain the case at hand. The court may use either inductive
reasoning, deductive reasoning, hypothesis syllogism, sorties analogy or may use judicial
hunch or other style of judicial opinion such as grand style, realistic style or formal style. But
also judicial style and reasoning is determined according to the evidence adduced before
the court43 . According to the case of Heaven v. Pender44 , the decision remind us inductive
reasoning is concerned with probabilities, and in normative contexts it is more accurate to
talk to relative strength or congency of reasons.
2.3.6 It helps the court to alive into a just conclusion of marked point of matter before it. This
is because evidence is used to either prove or disprove all disputed fact. As through this the
court can arrive into a just conclusion of contended fact. If evidence is to be admitted at the
court,it must be relevant ,material and competent. To be considered relevant it must have
some reasonable tendency to help prove or disprove some fact45 . One fact is relevant when
to another if they are connected with each other in any of the ways described by the law 46
example the fact in issue may be Whether A stole B’S motorcycle? the relevant fact to prove
the alleged fact may be B’S car was found in A’S compound, A was seen driving a car while
he does not have one , A was found in possession of B’S car-key. On the part of disproving
the alleged fact may be that the car is real B’S property, A was somewhere for vacation.
Example the case of Sikujua Idd v R 47The appellant was charged with murder contrary to
section 196 of Penal Code the provide evidence was based on circumstantial that the
accused person killed the deceased person but the evidence did not point the accused
directly the court held that for the circumstantial evidence to stand, the evidence must
irresistibly point the accused guilt exclude the other person. It shows for what extents
evidence can save a person who has accused to be guilt by using evidence with less weight.
2.3.7 It helps in resolving dispute. This is because evidence help Judges to make batter
decision according to the fact in issue and evidence provided before the court. As evidence
brought before the court such as material object, document needed not make the fact
certain,but at least it must tend to increase the or decrease the likelihood of some fact 48 . Of
all rules of evidence, the most universal and the matter obvious is this that the evidence
adduced should be alike directed and confined to the matters which is neither directly or
indirectly relevant to those matters , ought at once to be put aside and it may be rejected of
being irrelevant49. In the case of Gai Ipenzule vs Sumi Mgoge 50 Mwalusanya J, held that …it
43
Mukoyogo, Legal Method,( The Open University of Tanzania, 1994)
44
[1883 ] 11 QBD 503
45
https://www findlaw.com The concept of admissibility>accessed on 14th December 2023 at 18;34
46
Sarkar SC Law of Evidence volume II(Malaysia Edition)( Lexis Nexis 2016)63
47
Criminal Appeal No.484 of 201
48
Ibid
49
Ibid
50
[1985]TZHC 14
is not the law as suggested by the appellant that direct evidence of a person caught in
flagrante delicto is the only admissible evidence to prove adultery. Very rarely is adultery
proved by direct evidence ; the common practice is that adultery is proved by circumstantial
evidence .Therefore evidence is more significant in making sure that justice is found thus
the court used to remove any kind of condition to prove fact that may delay justice.
2.3.8 Ensure fair outcomes in legal proceedings. This is done through presenting relevant
and reliable evidence. As section 7 of the Evidence Act51 provides that “evidence may be
given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non- existence of every fact in issue, and
of such other facts as are hereinafter declared to be relevant and of no others. The meaning
of this is that in any suit or proceeding evidence is given to prove the existence or non-
existence of every fact in issue or of such other facts which are declared to be relevant by
someone or other of the remaining sections of the chapter, and the last four word therefore
exclude evidence of collateral facts which are incapable of affording any reasonable
presumption as to the facts in issue52. And even if a fact be relevant, it has to be proved in
the proper way indicated53. The issue of proving relevant fact can be seen in the case of
Jimmy Runangaza vs R 54It was held that circumstantial evidence must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt. It is settled law that Criminal cases where it is found that there is doubt
need to be resolved in fouvor of the accused person. Through this help in dispensation of
justice since everyone is treated according to what the law provides.
2.3.9 It helps Judges and juries to make informed decision based on fact rather than
speculation or personal beliefs. Evidence is crucial in helping judges and juries make
informed decisions based on facts. It provides them with concrete information and supports
or refutes claims made during a trial. By relying on evidence, judges and juries can avoid
speculation and personal beliefs, ensuring a fair and objective outcome. Evidence can
include things like documents, witness testimonies, expert opinions, and physical
evidence ,As evidence may include evidence which is directly perceived or inspected by the
court itself . They include tangible items (exhibits) such as weapons used in a murder, the
good stolen in a burglary, the handkerchief found in the scene of crime. For example in the
case of R vs Kartipu Motaja@ Kilangi and Another55 “The accused person Kartipu Motaja
and Hamis Mujungwa are indicated for unlawful possession of government trophy contrary
to section 86(1) and (2) (b) of the Wildlife Conservation Act in which the evidence on the
second accused was not well provided compare to that of the first accused person. It was
held that the first accused is found in possession of government trophy contrary to section
86(1) and (2) (b) of the Wildlife Conservation Act”. Through this help to establish the truth
and make sure justice is saved.

51
[ Cap 6 R.E 2022]
52
Sarkar Sc (n)2

53
Sarkar Sc (n)2
54
Criminal Appeal no.159 of 2017(unreported)
55
Economic Case no.11 of 2020
3.0 CONCUSION

REFERENCES

STATUTES
Evidence Act [Cap 6 R.E 202]

CASES

Omychund v barker (1780) 1 atk, 21, 49; 26 ER 15, 33.

 Mawethu Ngxito & Sivuyile Xhantini v. Minister of Police & Mohakare Local Municipality,
case no. 139[2019] HC South Africa
Sikujua Idd v. RCriminal Appeal No. 484 of 2019 the High court of Tanzania at Bukoba
(unreported)
Musanga Ng'andwa v. Chief Japhet Wanzagi and eight others [2006] TLR 35
Heaven v. Pender [1883] 11 QBD 503
Dunne v. Governor of Clover hill Prison2008] IEHC 16
R vs Kartipu Motaja@ Kilangi and Another Economic Case no 11 of 2020.
Gai Ipenzule vs Sumi Mgoge [1985]TZHC 14
Jimmy Runangaza vs R Criminal Appeal no.159 of 2017(unreported) Edward Mwakamela v.
R (1987) TLR, 121.
Smt.Sobha Rani V Ravi Kumar & Others (1987) TLR, 121.
Owner V Bee Hive Spinning Co. Ltd, (1914) 1 KB 105.
Marwari Kumhar V Bhagwan Puri Guru Ganesh Puri AIR 2000 SC 2629.
Iswar Das (dead) through L.R. V Sohandas (dead) through L.RAIR 2000 SC 428. Garton v.
Hunter[1969] 1 All ER 451
Selemani Makumba v. Republic [2006] TLR 379
Kajala v. Noble (1982) 75 Cr App R 149 (DC)
D. Hussein v Republic ( 1975) LRT. no 45

Forbes v Samuel [1913] 3 KB 706.

BOOK
Law of Evidence, VEPA P. SARATI, EASTERN BOOK COMPANY, LUCKNOW, 2010.
The modern law of evidence, ninth edition, Adrian keane & Paul McKeon, oxford 2012, UK.
Pg. 257

Sweet & Maxwell, Phipson on Evidence, (17th, THOMSON REUTERS, England, 2010)
Sarkar SC Law of Evidence volume II(Malaysia Edition)( Lexis Nexis 2016 L
Batuk The Law of Evidence 5th Ed 2001 published by Universal Law Publishing Co. Ltd.
Emson, R evidence (2004) 2nd Ed published by Palgrave MacMillan, New York.
Keane A, & McKeown P, The Modern Law of Evidence 9th Edition (2011). Oxford University
Press.
Gilbert G. The Law of Evidence 3-4 (1st ed. 1754).
MANUAL

Nance A. D., (1988) Civil Litigation and Evidence, Evidence in Civil and Criminal Cases: The Best
Evidence Principle, 73 lowa L. Rev 2.

JOURNALS

Michael H Graham, (2018) the original writing best evidence rule.

WEBSITES

https//;en.m.wikipedia.org, (best evidence rule), 16:30,13rd December 2023.

https://www findlaw.com The concept of admissibility>accessed on 14th December 2023 at 18;34 L,

WORK OUTLINE

1.0 Introduction.

1.1 The ancient scope of application of the ‘Best Evidence Rule’

2.1 The rationale behind strict nature of Best Evidence Rule.
2.1.1 The best evidence rule is used to avoid possibilities of fraud

2.1.2When giving or providing the best evidence rule Authenticity and Accuracy.

2.1.4 Best evidence rule is applied to be preservation of context and detail.

2.2 The logic behind relinquishing the ancient strict nature of Best Evidence Rule and
the Exception it admits today.

2.2.1 The logic behind Best Evidence Rule relinquishing it's ancient strict nature.
2.2.1.1 One of the logic behind is to allow a party to a case to be able to use secondary
evidence on proving the case when the original document is either lost destroyed or
otherwise unobtainable and this can be allowed if the court is satisfied itself with the
explanation given by the party.

2.2.1.2 Another logic behind of relinquishing it's strict nature is to allow a party who is
simply trying to prove an event of fact that is memorialized in a writing, recording or piece
of photographic evidences.

2.2.2 The exemptions that the Best Evidence Rule admits today.

2.2.2.1 When all originals are Lost or destroyed and not by the party offering the evidence
acting in bad faith.
2.2.2.2 When the party who the original document would be offered against had control of
the original, and was put on notice that the original would be a subject of proof at the trial
or hearing and fails to produce it.
2.2.2.3 When the production of original document is impossible.

2.2.2.4 When the original is a public document.

2.2.2.5 When the existence or contents of the original have been admitted
2.2.2.6 When the Original is not easy movable.
2.3 Significance of Evidence in dispensation of Justice.
2.3.1 Evidence helps the court to determine the relevant fact.
2.3.2 Evidence provides forms which are equally admissible and testimony whether to the
factum probandum or the facta probantia
2.3.3 Evidence proof or disproof the fact in issue.
2.3.4 Evidence helps in Judicial proceedings as a part of argument and inference where by
the court is informed as to the issues of fact as ascertained by the pleadings
2.3.5 Evidence enables the court to determine which kind of judicial style and reasoning
maybe applied to entertain the case exhaustively.
2.3.6 It helps the court to alive into a just conclusion of marked point of matter before it.
2.3.7 Ensure fair outcomes in legal proceedings
2.3.8 It helps in resolving dispute.

2.3.9 It helps Judges and juries to make informed decision based on fact rather than speculation or
personal beliefs.
3.0 CONCLUSION
4.0 REFERENCES.