Camusat Tanzania Limited vs Wananchi Cable Tanzania Limited (Commercial Case No. 22569 of 2026) [2026] TZHC 2935 (4 June 2026)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM COMMERCIAL CASE NO. 22569 OF 2026 CAMUSAT TANZANIA LIMITED ....................................... PLAINTIFF VERSUS WANANCHI CABLE TANZANIA LIMITED.......................DEFENDANT REASON FOR THE DECISION 24t hApril & 4hJune, 2026 POMO, 3 On 24th day of April, 2026, HASHIM ABDULLAH RAHADHANI testifying for the plaintiff as PW1, prayed to tender as exhibits the invoices, namely, Tax invoice No. CTI /TNV07159 dated 79/08/7074; Tax Tnvnire Nn. CTI /TNV07708 dated 30/09/2024; Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02210 dated 30/09/2024; Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02313 dated 11/12/2024; Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02207 dated 30/09/2024; Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02209 dated 30/09/2024; Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02211 dated 30/09/2024; Tax Invoice No. CTLINV02213 dated 30/09/2024; Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02425 dated 18/03/2025 and Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02425 dated 18/03/2025. However,

Mr. Atlay Thawe and Mr. Nasri Hassan, learned advocate for the defendant objected to their admissions of which I allowed him argued Submitting, Mr. Thawe, argued that they object admissibility of these invoices because they are secondary evidence. That, no foundation was laid down before asking them to be admitted. That, the circumstances under which they are tendered is not shown which is contrary to section 72 and 73(l)(a) of the Evidence [Cap. 6 R.E. 2023]. That, no notice to produce which was filed in court to justify reliance of the said secondary evidence. In reply submission, Mr. Harun Oyugi, learned advocate for the plaintiff submitted that the witness laid down foundation on how he obtained these documents. That, they were shared to him electronically. In that matter, the documents are electronic evidence and as such there was no requirement to issue a notice to produce. In the circumstance, by the fact that these are electronic evidence, there is no requirement for the plaintiff to present primary evidence. He referred this court to section 20(b) of the Electronic Transaction Act, [Cap.442 R.E. 2023] read together with section 19(1) of the same Act. Henceforth, Mr. Oyugi prayed the objection be overruled and the tax invoices be admitted. 2

In rejoinder submission, Mr. Thawe reiterated the submission in chief and added that the cited provisions of The Electronic Transaction Act are misplaced to the herein circumstance reason being that the essence of the objection is that the plaintiff intended to rely on secondary evidence and the relevant tax invoices were dispatched to the defendants in its original form and not as electronic evidence, of which the witness never stated that is tendering electronic evidence. That, the documents are not electronic evidence and admission of the same will be in violation of the provisions of The Evidence Act as cited by him. He insisted the objection be upheld Having considered the objection as well submissions from both sides, I overruled the objections on the same date, that is to say on 24/04/2026, and thus admitted the invoices, namely; Tax invoice No. CTL/INV02159 dated 29/08/2024; Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02208-dated 30/09/2024;-T^x- Invoice No. CTL/INV02210 dated 30/09/2024; Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02313 dated 11/12/2024; Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02207 dated 30/09/2024; Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02209 dated 30/09/2024; Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02211 dated 30/09/2024; Tax Invoice No. CTL INV02213 dated 30/09/2024; Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02425 dated 18/03/2025 and Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02425 dated 18/03/2025 are hereby admitted and 3

marked exhibits PE6; PE7; PE8; PE9; PE10; PE11; PE12; PE13; PE14 and PE15 respectively thereby reserved reasons for the decision. Here are the reasons for the decision. In rejoinder submission, Mr. Thawe argued that the cited provisions of The Electronic Transaction Act are misplaced to the herein circumstance reason being that the essence of the defendant's objection is that the plaintiff intended to rely on secondary evidence and the relevant tax invoices were dispatched to the defendants in its original form and not as electronic evidence, of which the witness never stated that is tendering electronic evidence. What is to be grasped by the court from Mr. Thawe's submission is that the original tax invoices issued by the plaintiff are in possession of the defendant. With the above therefore, in terms of the proviso to section 74 of The Evidence A ct TCap.6 R.E.20231. the plaintiff had no duty of issuing o notice to produce to the defendant, as- long is aware and in possession of those taxi invoices. The section reads thus: - "S.74 Secondary evidence o f the contents of the documents referred to in paragraph (a) o f subsection (1) o f section 73 shall not be given unless the party proposing to give such secondary evidence has previously given to the party in whose possession or power the document is, or to his advocate, such notice to produce it as prescribed by law; and if no notice is prescribed by

law, then such notice as a court considers reasonable in the circumstance o f the case: Provided that \ the notice shall not be required in order to render secondary evidence admissible in any o f the following cases: (a) when the document to be proved is itself a notice; (b) when, from the nature of the case, the adverse party must know that he will be required to produce it; (c) N/A (d) when the adverse party or his agent has the original in court: (e) N/A (f) N/A (g) in any other case in which the court thinks fit to dispense with the requirement In the circumstances, the bolded subsections to the proviso of section 74 of the Evidence Act empowered this court to admit those tax invoices in their secondary form on the ground that original ones are in possession of the defendant. Therefore, the objection raised is hereby overruled. It is so ordered. DATED at MBEYA on this 4th day of JUNE, 2026 MUSA K. POMO 5

JUDGE 04/06/2026 Ruling delivered virtually at Mbeya on this 4th day of June, 2026 in presence of Mr. Haron Oyugi, learned advocate for the plaintiff and Mr. Atlay Thawe, learned advocate for the defendant. MUSAK.' POMO JUDGE 04/06/2026