TASK, Explain the exception to the rule of hearsay evidence.
Evidence
means anything which tends to persuade an inquiry of the existence or non
existence of some fact or situation which he or she is inquiring about.[1]
Section 3 of the Tanzania Evidence Act, Evidence denotes the means by which an
alleged matter of fact the truth of which is submitted to the investigation is proved
is proved or disproved.[2] It
includes statements and admission by the accused person.
Hearsay Evidence is among the types of
evidence that denotes to testimony based on what a witness has heard from another
person of which he has no personal knowledge or experience. As general rule
Hearsay Evidence is not admissible section 62 of Tanzania Evidence Act requires
that all evidence must be direct proved in a case of Tenywa v. Uganda.[3]
The accused was accused of stealing a bicycle was seized by police officers
acting on this information. On examination the bicycle was found to have forged
number plate, the accused was convicted of the offence but he appealed and on appeal it was held that
the police report from Kampala suggesting that the original number
of the bicycle was altered was hearsay therefore it should not be admitted.
Though
Hearsay Evidence is not admissible but there is special circumstance the
Hearsay evidence will be admissible (Every general rule has its exceptions).
The following are the exception of Hearsay Evidence;
When
the maker of the statement cannot be found then the statement made by him can
be admissible and this authority for his supposition is found in a case of R v.
Ndolo.[4]
The court considered the meaning of cannot be found, here the witness left his
place of employment and was not serving with a summons for the date of the
trial. The trial was adjourned and assistance from the Registration Department
was of no avail as his movement could not be traced. It was contended that his
deposition should be read; the defense argued that has the prosecution taken
reasonable steps to discover his where about in preparation for the first date
of hearing he would have been available. The court held that the words cannot
be found refer to the time when the witness is sought to attend the trial and
do not refer to the state affairs at some earlier period.
When
the statement made by a person as to the cause of his death or circumstance
leading to death, this is proven under section 34(a) of Tanzania Evidence Act
also is proven in a case of Terikabi v. Uganda.[5]
The deceased in this case gave or made a statement giving the cause of his
death but no evidence of the circumstance relating to the death, and of course
the question was would this be admissible? Because essentially people are
looking at it as being that he has to give both cause and circumstance. So this
case was testing whether it a statement gave only cause would it be admissible?
If it gave only circumstance but no cause would it be admissible? And the court
her that the statement was admissible, that it was not necessary that statement
refer to both the cause and circumstances. Mention of either cause or
circumstance was sufficient.
When
statement relates to any relationship as per section 34(f) which state that
when the statement relates to the existence of any relationship by blood
marriage or adoption between person deceased and is made in any will or deed
relating to the affairs of the family is pedigree or upon any tombstone, family
portraits or other thing on which such statement are usually made and when such
statement was made before the question in dispute was raised. Under this
statement it will make hearsay evidence admissible.
Person
whose attendance cannot be procured without delay or expenses which is
unreasonable example witness has acquired diplomatic status the case of Mohamed
Taki v. R.[6]
Elaborate more about this exception; the court was called upon to take judicial
notice of fact relating to natural and artificial division of time and
geographical division of the world and public holiday. A party applied to court
to compel attendance of a witness who at that time was in Switzerland in the
circumstance of the case the court expressly judicially noticed the fact that
Switzerland was in Europe and proceedings were taking place in Kampala in
Uganda and it would be excessively expensive to import to a witness from
Switzerland to Kampala. The court of appeal stated that it might have been
better of the learned magistrate had been better of the learned magistrate had
evidence before him condition which make section 30 of the Uganda Evidence
Ordinance applicable but he was entitled
to take judicial notice of fact that Switzerland is in Europe and Kampala is in
Uganda and seems to been satisfied that
the attendance in Kampala of witness from Switzerland could not be procured
with an amount of delay or expense which in the circumstance of the case
appeared unreasonable.
Dying
declaration, is one among the exception of hearsay evidence section 34(a)
constitute what is called dying declaration at common law. Dying declaration is
defined in the oxford companion to law to mean verbal or written statement made
by a dying person who although not made on oath or in a presence of the accused
is admissible in evidences in an indirectment for murder or manslaughter that
person, provided the person making it had belief shortly. This exception is
addressed in a case of R v. Kabateleine Nchwamba. [7]
The deceased two days before she had been burned to death in her house told the
headman that the accused was threaten to burn her house because he said she had
caused the death of his father by witchcraft. The appeals court held that the
statement were a general expression indicating fear or suspicion but one
directly related to the occasion of death and therefore admissible.
Statement and entries in the course of
business, statement of
a person who are dead or un available are elaborated under section 34(b) are
admissible if the particular statement or entry is made the ordinary course of
business or duty. This is proven also in a case of Prince v. Lord Torrington.[8]
This was an action for a price
of beer sold and delivered. The plaintiff, in order to prove delivery, produced
a plaintiffs salesman who had a duty to sign every after such delivery. At the
when the case was in court the salesman had already died. The signature and the
death of the salesman, who personally knew of the times of delivery, were
proven. The court held that the entries were good evidence for the plaintiff.
Statement
made under special circumstances, this statement include entries in book of account
entries in public record statement
in maps chart and plan statement in Acts, gazette etc and statement as to law contained in book.
Conclusion,hearsay
evidence can be admissible under the above circumstance.
REFERENCE(S
STATUTE(S)
Tanzania
Evidence Act [cap 6 R.E 2002]
BOOK(S)
Eliot
and Phipson, Mannual of Evidence 12th Ed (1987)
CASES(S)
Tenywa
v. Uganda1967 EA 102(11
R
v. Ndolo (1926)10 KLR11
Terikabi
v. Uganda (1975
Mohamed
Taki v. R. (1961)
R
v. Kabateleine Nchwamba(1949)
Prince
v. Lord Torrington. (1703)
[2]
Tanzania Evidence Act[cap 6 R.E 2002]
[3]
1967 EA 102(11)
[4]
(1926)10 KLR11
[5]
(1975)
[6]
(1961)
[7]
(1946)
[8]
(1703)
Comments
Post a Comment