DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN UGANDA, A Briefcase by Raymond Amumpaire † The Ugandan Evidence Act defines a document to mean any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter. 1 Darling J in R v. Daye [1908] 2 KB 333 defines a document as anything capable of being evidence and that it is immaterial what the writing says. It is no wonder that in Salau Dean v. R [1966] EA 272, tape recordings were considered documents 2 . Documentary evidence on the other hand means all documents produced for the inspection of the court; 3 this documentary evidence is in two categories for the purposes of this question as public documents 4 constituting documents forming the acts and records of the acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, whether of Uganda, of any other part of the Commonwealth, of the Republic of Ireland or of a foreign country and public records kept in Uganda of private documents. Any document so registered in accordance with the law 5 In Sturla v. Freccia 6 , a public document was defined as one made for the purpose of the public making use of it and being able to refer to it, it is meant to be where there are judicial or quasi-judicial duty to inquire. The test for publicity and inspection of documents was well expounded on in the case of Mercer v. Denne 7 where it was stated that a public document is one that the public are interested in and entitled to see it and should there be any mistake they are entitled to protest and in that sense it has become open to public challenge or dispute and thus has a certain amount of authority. Private documents under section 74 of the Evidence Act as for the purpose of Ugandan Evidence law include all documents other than those earlier stated in section 73 of the Evidence Act. In relation to the first part of the question, some documents especially the private documents do require establishment that they were written, signed, or attested by the person or persons by whom they purport to be written, signed, or attested and according to the case of Stamper v. Griffin [1856] 20 Ed. 320, no writing can be † Raymond Amumpaire LLB (Hons) Uganda Christian University is a tech lawyer in Uganda and an advocate for tech- knowledge. He is also a Cyber Security consultant with a vast experience in Data Privacy, Regulatory Compliance and Digital Rights. CONTACT: raymondamumpaire@gmail.com, +256 (0) 783 670 308, 705 001 863. 1 Chapter 6, Laws of Uganda. 2 See also R v. Maksud Ali [1965] 2 All ER 464; Uganda v. Everisto Nyanzi. 3 Section 2 (c) of the Evidence Act, Chapter 6. 4 Section 73 of the Evidence Act, Chapter 6. 5 Section 4 of the Registration of Documents Act CAP 81. 6 5 AC 541. 7 1904 2 Ch. 538.