A Compulsory Research Report Submitted to Mzumbe University – Mbeya Campus College in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Award of Bachelor Degree of Laws [LL.B] of Mzumbe UniversityDLHT is one of the organs established in Tanzania to entertain land cases arising in the areas of their jurisdictions. It stands for the District Land and Housing Tribunal. It is the land tribunal established by section 22 of the Land Disputes Courts Act [Cap 216 R.E 2002]. Like any other competent organ with the jurisdiction to solve the disputes in the society, DLHT is also recognizing the documentary evidence which a party may produce before the tribunal in order to support his case. The importance of documentary evidence in a legal proceeding cannot be over-emphasized. They serve as the best form of evidence in the proof of a party‟s claim before the court. A document will be admissible in evidence only if it is admissible in law and is relevant to the facts in issue. The question of the relevance of the document practically is raised by the adverse party in the case who raises the P.O relating to the genuineness and admissibility of such document before the court of law. It is the requirement of the law that those documents to be relied upon in the case should be annexed in the plaint and pleadings at the earliest stage before the hearing of the case. However, the Land Disputes Courts (District Land and Housing Tribunal) Regulations, 2003 allows the production of the documentary evidence which were not annexed at the first hearing and or at any subsequent stage of the hearing before the hearing is closed. This is done without necessarily considering other procedural laws relating to the production of documents. However, the law is silent on why the normal procedure relating to the production of documents should not be followed in such circumstances of the cases which is concerning the justice of the persons. And is also silent on whether the other party who has already closed his case that may be allowed to call a witness who will be touched by the subsequently produced document in order to challenge such document. The study concludes that there is prejudice of justice in allowing the production of documents at any subsequent stage of the hearing of the case, before the case is closed. This is because, if one party has already closed his case, and allowing the other party to produce a document which he was not annexed in the plaint or pleadings at any x subsequent stage of the hearing of the case, this will prejudice the other party when such document discredit his evidence since he will not have an opportunity to call a witness who can challenge such document. So, finally the researcher gives out the recommendations on what to be done to cure this