LEGUSC LAWS

Empower your legal journey with our comprehensive legal resocurces

THE REASONS BEHIND DECENTRALIZATION AND ABOLITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

law , qn
Qn: Critically discuss the reasons behind decentralization and abolition of local government in Tanzania (1972-1983).


INTRODUCTION
In every state system, government authority is to some extent dispersed over several government bodies. This spread of authority is inevitable. Even in the most centralized systems, there is pressure to divide government activities and to attribute some power for making decisions and executing tasks to local authorities rather than the central government.
The term "local government" or "local-self government" means the government by freely elected local bodies which are endowed with power, discretion and responsibility to be exercised and discharged by them, without control over their decisions by any other higher authority. The actions are, however, subjected to the supremacy of the national government. Defining local-self government, it has been observed that: local inhabitants representing local body possessing autonomy within its limited spheres, raising revenue through local taxation and spending its income on local services constitute the local-self government.[1]
Local government is a system of local administration under local communities that are organized to maintain law and order, provide some limited range of social amenities, and encourage cooperation and participation of inhabitants towards the improvement of their living conditions.[2] Therefore, local government is that part of the government of the country operating at a local level, functioning through a representative organ, known as local authority or council, established by law to exercise specific powers within a defined area of jurisdiction.[3]
The purpose of local government authority is presented in the constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania as amended from time to time under Article 146 (1)[4] which states that "The purpose of having local government authorities is to transfer authority to the people. Local government authorities shall have the right and power to participate and involve the people in the planning and implementation of development programs within respective areas and generally throughout the country.


HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
After independence in 1961 the United Republic of Tanzania emerged with limited economic capacity and poorly developed social services. Obviously, the main challenge was to create an institutional framework that could facilitate development and equitable distribution of social services, the institutional framework in Tanzania continued in the form that was left by the British colonial regime. This meant that at that time, governance at the local level was vested in three bodies, namely, the native authorities, district councils, and town councils (Shivji & Peter, 2003).
At the time of independence in 1961, there were three categories of Local Authorities in the country namely:
- Native Authorities created under the Native Authorities Ordinance of 1926.
- District and Town Councils created under the Local Government Ordinance of 1953.
- One municipality (Dar es Salaam) created under the Municipalities Ordinance of 1946.
The administration of government was divided into phases which were First decade of independence (1961-1971), the Decentralization Period (1972-1982), The Reinstatement of Local Government (1983-1995) and the Reform Period (1996-2005).


The first decade of independence
The major goal of independence government was to have a system of administration which was democratic and consolidated nationhood. The Local Government set up had to be revisited. As a measure of consolidating independence and nationhood, the Local Government Ordinance was amended in 1962 to, inter alia, repeal the Native Authority Ordinance and with it, native authorities and chiefs. Most of these chiefs were absorbed into the government as administrators.
The post-independence Local Authorities worked under difficult circumstances. Independence had just been obtained. Expectations were high. Resources were limited and the national political milieu was anxious to engage in various experiments which were seen as having the potential of bringing equitable development to the people of Tanzania.


The Reasons for the abolishment of Local Government of 1972:
The local (particularly district) Authorities collapsed. District Authorities were abolished on 30 June 1972 while Urban Authorities were abolished on June 30 1973. At the time of their abolition, there were 66 district councils and 15 urban councils in Tanzania.
  1. Services had expanded rapidly but Local Authorities had inadequate resources to fund them. Their financial base was poor, revenue realised was falling, because of difficult collection and changing relationships with the Central Government. Government grants were far too short of requirements.
  2. Local Authorities faced a major lack of capacity in terms of human resources. - Local Authorities were accused of mismanagement of the funds that they collected themselves as well as those that the Government granted to them.
  3.  The period after independence saw concerted development enthusiasm with a lot of infrastructure getting constructed (e.g. through self-help) but with little preparation of the Local Authorities, which were eventually expected to administer this infrastructure. Besides, the political situation did not very much support the efforts by Local Authorities to collect own revenue.
  4. The system of supervising Local Governments, which had been in place since colonial times became weakened after independence. Since many council officials and councillors lacked the necessary experience and know-how to run Local Authorities, this weakening of supervision had deleterious effects on the running of Local Authorities.
  5. The relationship between Local authority staff and Councillors was almost always sour. Among the problems experienced were: Councillors getting reluctant to take part in campaigns for tax collection; financially impoverished councillors depending on sitting allowances for their income thus having unnecessarily many meetings, or holding meetings which were indecisive; blurred division of responsibilities between the councillors and officials; councillors demanding special treatment such as offices and vehicles for their personal use; and councillors engaging in shoddy deals when it came to awarding contracts.
At the same time, Tanzania was experimenting with a revolutionary system of socio-economic development known as Ujamaa socialism, which among others, involved the reorganisation of rural settlements into communal villages, and which eschewed the supremacy of the Party in all ramifications of political, social and economic organisation. The "received" system of Local Government seemed somewhat at odds with the evolving political set up.
Until 1973, the Local Government system was made up of district, town, and municipal councils. The latter were Dar es Salaam (which got city status in 1961), and the municipality of Tanga. In the end, local (particularly district) Authorities collapsed. District Authorities were abolished on 30 June 1972 while urban Authorities were abolished on June 30 1973. At the time of their abolition, there were 66 district councils and 15 urban councils in Tanzania.


Why a new system was established after abolition of Local Government:
The intention of this change was to create a system that provided more freedom for both decision-making and participation. The first president of Tanzania, Julius Nyerere, argued that abolishment of the LGAs would bring the decision-making process closer to the people (Nyerere, 1972). The people could express their concerns using the party-structure of Tanganyika African National Union (TANU) the ruling party. It was expected that this structure would enhance popular participation as noticed by Picard (1980), the main purpose of this decentralization scheme was to make bureaucracy more accountable to the political party (TANU).
The result was a de-concentrated system of administration in which public servants appointed by the central government staffed all levels of government, from regions and districts to sub-district levels. An appointed officer worked as representative of the central government in the districts. His office paid the salaries of the servants in that region and he could decide upon staffing as well as having the ability to freeze projects or apply money elsewhere.



MAIN BODY
Decentralization is the process by which the activities of an organisation, particularly those regarding planning and decision-making, are distributed or delegated away from a central, authoritative location or group.[5]
The concept of decentralization deals with the division of powers between a central governmental body and local governmental units. There are many terms used to address the division of powers between these units.[6]
If the local bodies are subordinate to the central body, this is usually called de-concentration. In this situation, the local units are answerable to a superior authority and have no legal powers except for those powers that are distributed by the central body. The opposite of this is when the local bodies are, to some extent, autonomous. This method of dividing tasks in a state system is often labelled devolution. The local bodies in such a system have authority in their own right and are typically not subordinate to other units in the system.


The Decentralization Process in Tanzania
Tanzania adopted the decentralization policy in 1972, which aimed on giving more authorities and functions to the local government authorities. Consequently, this gave the citizens powers to make decision on their issues affecting their life. Furthermore, the policy has got two major forms; these were Deconcentration and Devolution.
During the Deconcentration period, rural development was centrally coordinated and managed at the district and regional levels. According to Mollel (2010:36), though deconcentration was required to give more freedom to grassroots in decision-making and participation in matters that affect their lives, yet decision-making powers continued to be retained at the centre.
During the devolution period, the method of dividing tasks in a state system from central government to local authorities. The local bodies in such a system have authority in their own right and are typically not subordinate to other units in the system.


Decentralization (The period between 1972-1982)
This period is generally known as the "Decentralisation Period". Here, the Government experimented with taking power to the people by decentralising Central Government. A system of deconcentration of the government system replaced the comprehensive Local Government system which had existed for a decade.
The new system was aimed at giving the people decision-making powers on matters affecting their welfare and of local importance and to give them the personnel and finances for their implementation.  Regions and districts were to plan and implement local development activities as well as administer their own local affairs with very limited interference from the seat of Central Government, Dar es Salaam.
Decentralization of government functions from central government to the local authority in Tanzania is a policy which has been adopted and enforced by the united republic of Tanzania to ensure efficiency and effectiveness in the government functions.
The decentralization of local government in Tanzania is governed by the enacted laws of the parliament, these laws are:
  • The Local Government (District Authority) Act CAP 287 (RE 2002), This Act establishes local government authorities within rural areas of Tanzania. The Act also explains the functions and powers of the local government authority within rural areas. 
  • The Regional Administration Act, 1997 No. 19/1997
  • The Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Chapter 8, Article 145 (1), stipulates the establishment of local government Authority, stating that "there shall be established of local government authorities in each region, district, urban areas and the village in the United Republic which shall be of the type and designation prescribed by law to be enacted by the parliament or the house of representatives".
  • Interim Provisions Act no.27 of 1972 provides for the establishment of development councils and planning committees in ever administrative district as statutory bodies of the new arrangement to replace the district councils".


The reasons for decentralization of local government in Tanzania
Citizen participation: The enactments of Laws have been made to ensure total involvement and participation of people in their own development. The involvement and participation focus on increase of democracy in decision-making planning, implementation of activities and control of resources. A good example is citizens can participate widely on election matters because they directly affect them. The Local Authorities Elections Act[7] This Act explains the process of electing ward councillors as the representatives of local people. "Participation" became a catchword and a rallying slogan. Development councils were created in the districts and in urban areas.

Equal allocation of resources in a country. The most common theoretical argument for decentralization is that it improves the efficiency of resource allocation. Decentralized levels of government have their purpose in the provision of goods and services whose consumption is limited to own jurisdictions. By tailoring outputs of such goods and services to the particular preferences and circumstances of their constituencies, decentralized provision increases economic welfare above that which results from the more uniform levels of such services that are likely under national provision. This results in increase of efficiency and effectiveness of the government functions.

Cost Recovery, Making services more demand responsive through decentralization is argued to have the added benefit that it increases households' willingness to pay for services. Households are argued to be more willing to pay for and maintain services that match their demand. This is the flip side of the locative efficiency coin.

Provision of social and economic services and operates as autonomous organs, by which the local authorities are given delegated powers to enact by laws, to employ, to collect revenues. Example of social services includes education, health, social welfare, or housing to sub-national governments. This is evidenced by Aleksander (2012)[8]. In participatory system, citizens can influence decisions about service provision through mechanisms which enable them to indicate the type, level, quality and mix of services they desire, and the cost they are willing to pay for
such services. This constitutes a type of market mechanism for determining service provision in a manner which responds to the wishes of citizens, and is sensitive to their willingness/ability to pay. This will not only optimize citizen satisfaction, but is also an excellent mechanism for reconciling citizens expectations to the resources available and/or the price which they are prepared to pay for the services desired.

To provide the local authorities with machinery of decision-making and implementation of plans made in the lower level. In a nutshell, the aims of this decentralisation Programme were that, rural development should be managed at district and regional levels; rural development should be co-ordinated centrally; the people should be involved in the development process; rural development should be effectively planned and controlled.

It mobilizes local resources in support of the development process, and enables value-added contributions to the provision of services and development efforts, which increases the total value of services provided, or development achieved, from the limited formal resources available. This happens because local people are able to identify and mobilize local/indigenous resources which would not be available to centrally run programmes, and because citizens are often willing to volunteer free labour and expertise, and other forms of in-kind contributions, in order to support local initiatives.

A decentralized, participatory model of local governance fosters accountability, transparency, openness and creates pressure for the adoption of high ethical standards in the conduct of public affairs. Examples: (a) To induce civil society participation, local governments practicing this model will usually adopt measures to promote accountability, openness, & transparency in the conduct of their affairs, such as: co-opting civil society representatives to their committees; opening meetings of Councils /committees to the public/media, and/or broadcasting their proceedings; holding town meetings; discussing budget options with citizens; publishing annual/periodic reports. (b) In such models, LSD Planning is a local responsibility which is carried out in a participatory manner, with civil society playing a prominent role. Civil society will therefore be fully informed on the issues, trends, options, and prospects affecting or relating to the region/locality, and thus can use that knowledge to assess the state of local affairs, and performance of the authorities.

Provides the opportunity for a wider diversity of innovations, and increases flexibility of government in the context of changing circumstances. This is so because the decentralized, participatory model of governance mainstreams the many groups/citizens who were previously excluded, and creates greater scope for local and community self management. This means that the vast reservoir of talent, innovativeness, creativity, problem solving capacity and leadership qualities which have previously laid dormant in the local population is now able to find expression, and can be applied to the problems, visions and aspirations of the local community, and will also be available to contribute to nation building. Such diversity/flexibility is important pre-conditions for significant policy and pragmatic changes.

Facilitate better division of labour in the management of public affairs. The creation of strong local governments with the capacity to effectively manage local affairs enables central government to concentrate on higher level functions. This both improves efficiency and creates more effective checks and balances. A major weakness of public administration in the Caribbean is the neglect of high level functions such as policy formulation, strategic planning, setting standards and monitoring, because central agencies are pre-occupied with operational level matters, while neglecting areas which could make a qualitative difference in public management. Devolution allows each level of government to focus on the aspects of public management which it is best suited to perform.
Generally, the period of decentralization lasted for 10 years and was described by Oyugi as "misleading and confusing to be called decentralization". This period was accompanied by strong emphasis on economic plan and party domination.[9]


Conclusively, on the other hand, a fully decentralized government is impossible, since the reallocation of public means within a country demands a certain level of coordination from a central governmental body, because we find there is partial decentralization which does not lead to decentralization aspects as per the intention of it. Despite the provision in article 145 - 146 of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania[10] and Local Government Act[11] still decentralization is not well and properly practiced due to overlapping of powers in decision making between the central government and local government.


BIBLIOGRAPHY
STATUTES
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977
  • Local Government Act, CAP 287, R.E. 2002


BOOKS
  • Henry Abraham Mollel & Albertjan Tollenaar (2013): Decentralization in Tanzania: Design and Application in Planning Decisions, International Journal of Public Administration, 36:5, 344-353
  • K.Venkata rangia "Local Government In India", Bombay (1969)


WEBSITES
  • en.m.wikipedia.org
  • www.poralg.go.tz



[1] K.Venkata rangia "Local Government In India", Bombay (1969), p.1.
[2] Adeyemo 2005: 77.
[3] Warioba 1991: 1.
[4] The Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania CAP 2
[5] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/decentralization
[6] Henry Abraham Mollel & Albertjan Tollenaar (2013): Decentralization in Tanzania: Design and Application in Planning Decisions, International Journal of Public Administration, 36:5, 344-353
[7] Act No. 4 of 1979.
[8] 'Fiscal Decentralization in Eastern Europe: A Twenty-Year Perspective.' MPRA Paper No. 39316 and Nobuo and Sakata (2002), 'Fiscal Decentralization Contributes to Economic Growth: Evidence from State Level Cross-Section Data for the United States', Journal of Urban Economics, Vol.52, No.1, pp. 93–108.
[9] Oyungi (1998)
[10] CAP 2
[11] CAP 287, R.E. 2002
Read more »
Tags: ,

THE ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGE IN TORT

law , qn
INTRODUCTION

Assessment of Damages is a very wide area of the law. It is very ‘technical’ and covers an important area of civil litigation where there is an alleged civil wrong or an infraction of the law. It permeates almost all civil claims arising from tort and contract. 
When a claim for damages is included in an action, the plaintiff or claimant is required under the law to provide evidence in support of the claim and to give facts upon which the damages could be assessed. Simply put, before assessment of damages could be made,
The plaintiff or claimant must first furnish evidence to warrant the award of damages.  He must also provide facts that would form the basis of assessment of the damages he would be entitled to. His failure to do so would be fatal to his claim for damages.
That is why in all actions where damages is one of the reliefs claimed, the plaintiff or claimant is always called upon to give evidence in support of the claim for damages after interlocutory judgment is entered in his favour upon the failure of the defendant to either enter appearance or to defend the action. But before straying into the technical area of ‘assessment of damages’, which is our subject for this period, it is important that we know and appreciate what the word ‘Damages’ in law means.
When the word is used in its singular context; i.e. ‘damage’, what it simply connotes is either:  (i) Harm or injury, that is; physical injury that makes something less useful, less valuable or unable to function properly; e.g. (a) damage to a vehicle or any property
(ii) An adverse or harmful effect on somebody or something; e.g. (a) did damage his reputation in the community in which he lives,  (b) suffered psychological damage as a result of harassment, etc.  In another sense, damage is used to mean the cost or price of something.
However, ‘Damages’, as used in law, is nothing but, a sum of money claimed as compensation or awarded by a Court as compensation to the plaintiff/claimant for harm, loss or injury suffered by the plaintiff/claimant as a result of the tortuous act or breach of contract committed by the defendant or his agent.

Elizabeth A. Martin’s edition of the Oxford Dictionary of Law, 5 Edition, published by Oxford University Press, defines ‘damages’ as “a sum of money awarded by a court as compensation for a tort or breach of contract”.
In ‘McGregor on Damages’, the word ‘Damages’ is defined as; “the pecuniary compensation obtainable by success in an action, for a wrong which is either a tort or a breach of contract, the compensation being in the form of a lump sum, which is awarded unconditionally”. {Chapter 1, page 3}. ‘Damages’ is one of the several remedies that are open to a plaintiff who suffers injury or harm as a result of the tortuous act or breach of contract of another.


MAIN BODY
Damages are usually ‘lump sum’ awards. The general principle underlying the award of DAMAGES either in tort or in contract is that the plaintiff or claimant is entitled to full compensation for his losses; i.e. the principle of ”restitutio in integrum”. 
However, in determining how much to award, the Court considers two matters;
(i) The measure of damages, (i.e. quantum or the amount of money or lump sum that must be awarded)
(ii) Remoteness of damages; (i.e. the proximate cause of the breach).
In ‘tort’, the purpose of damages is to put the plaintiff in the position he would have been in if the tort had not been committed. [restitutio in integrum]. Damages are not awarded to over-enrich a plaintiff far beyond his actual losses. The reverse is also the case. Plaintiff should not get far less than his actual loss.
In the case of Borketey v. Achinivu & others (1966) GLR, 92, where a taxicab collided with a bus leading to a complete damage of the taxicab beyond repairs, the Supreme Court, in an appeal held that, “the appellant was entitled not only to the market value of the taxicab at the date of the accident but also to the profits he would have made had the car remained on the road”. {Total or actual loss}
So in both cases; either in tort or in contract, the principle is; ‘restitutio in integrum’.  It is pertinent to note, however, that recovery of damages is limited by the rules of “Remoteness of damages”, as indicated above. By ‘remoteness’ is meant that the damages to be awarded must not be too remote from, but must be proximate to the tortuous act or the breach.


Bradford v. Robinson Rentals ltd[1]   In the Bradford case cited above it was held that it is not necessary that the precise nature of the injury be foreseeable, provided that ‘the accident which occurred is a type which should have been foreseeable by a reasonable careful person, the defendant would be liable. th As stated in Salmon on Torts (14  edition at page 719), “It is sufficient if the type, kind, degree or order of harm could have been foreseen in a general way. The question is, was the accident a variant of the perils originally brought about by the defendants’ negligence?” 
TYPES OF DAMAGES: - Damages are of two main types, namely; General Damages and Special Damages. Apart from these two categorization, damages may also be classified as Liquidated and Unliquidated. This second classification pertains or is limited to only contracts or agreements.
According to Lord Macnaghten, ‘General damages’ are such as the law will presume to be the direct natural or probable consequence of the action complained of. ‘Special damages’ on the other hand, are such as the law will not infer from the nature of the act. They do not follow in ordinary cause. They are exceptional in character and therefore they must be claimed specially and proved strictly.
Chahin & Sons v. Epope Printing Press[2] Special Damages are liquidated, verifiable and provable sums; e.g. loss of income, loss of rent, loss of wages, replacement costs, loss of marriage, loss of material hospitality, loss of employment, loss of a business dealing (even if it might have turned out unprofitable), loss of particular customers, a general falling of profits and any other material loss. The recovery of such damages is however, subject to the principle of remoteness as already discussed above. 

Damages for Libel/Slander
In both libel and slander, damages are awarded to compensate the plaintiff for the injury to his reputation and the hurt to his feelings. Such damages are compensatory and therefore ‘at large’. Such damages are termed as a solatium rather than a monetary recompense for harm measurable in monetary terms. However, the general compensatory damages may be increased to take into accounts the defendant’s motives in uttering the words complained of or his conduct during the action. These additional or increased damages are what we call ‘aggravated’ or ‘increased’ damages as discussed earlier. They are meant to compensate the plaintiff for the additional injury caused as already explained above.
For factors to be considered in assessing damages recoverable in libel, see the case of Anthony v. University College of Cape Coast [1973] 1 GLR 299, per Edward Wiredu, J. (as he then was). For principles of assessment of damages in a customary law action for slander
Before going to the factors the following are the elements in which the court must take into consideration before awarding the damages which are Causation and Remoteness of the damages.


Causation; The claimant must prove that the damage complained of is the result of the defendant’s breach of duty. This is a question of fact. There must be an unbroken chain of causation. An event which breaks the chain of causation is known as a novus actus interveniens. Proof is on a balance of probabilities as stated in Hotson v East Berkshire[3] also in  Stovold v Barlows[4]

Remoteness of damage; It is not sufficient merely for the claimant to establish a causal connection between the act of the defendant and the damage which the claimant suffers. It is also necessary to establish that the damage was not too remote. This is a matter of law, and legal rules have been formulated to determine the question of remoteness of damage which have been established in answer to the question: ‘For how much of the damage is the defendant liable?’


Damages
One of the remedies available in tort of defamation is damages, damages simply means compensation in monetary value. For the purpose of guiding the courts in assessing general damages some factors has been developed. These factors were enumerated in Professor Donton Mkandawire v. Alfred Mtonga and Nation Publications Limited[5], 


FACTS OF THE CASE
The plaintiff, the Chief Executive for Lilongwe City assembly, commenced action against the defendants who are the editor and printers and publishers of the Nation Newspaper claiming that on the front page of the issue of the Nation Newspaper of 29th April 2005 the defendants maliciously printed and published or caused to be published the following words defamatory of the plaintiff:
“Lilongwe City Assembly Chief Executive Donton Mkandawire may face another contempt of Court charge following allegations that he threatened High Court Judge Richard Chinangwa after he ordered the Assembly to reinstate seven employees who were being accused of inciting a strike in July last year “

“The records indicate that the Judge got a threat from Lilongwe City Assembly through a phone call ………”

The plaintiff further claims that in their natural and ordinary meaning the said words meant and were understood to mean,
1.    That the plaintiff is a violent person who does not respect the rule of law.
2.     That the plaintiff is not fit to be a Chief Executive of a big and reputable institution like Lilongwe City Assembly.
3.   That the plaintiff does not respect the independence of the Judiciary.


In consequence his reputation has been seriously damaged and has suffered considerable distress and embarrassment and therefore he claims damages for libel including exemplary damages and costs of the action.
The defendants did not attend court on the date appointed for the assessment of the damages despite having been duly served with the notice. No reason for non-attendance having been given, the court proceeded to hear the plaintiff in their absence.

In his evidence the plaintiff confirmed the facts pleaded in his statement of claim. He tendered in evidence the newspaper article in question and it was marked EX P1. He told the court that the heading of the article itself, which read “Lilongwe City boss threatens Judge” in big block letters, was misleading. No where did the judge indicate he got a threatening call from the plaintiff. The plaintiff further said that he got shocked with the article. He got several calls from ministers and others asking him why on earth he could do such a thing. He through his lawyers demanded an apology to appear in five successive editions of the paper but that was not done by the defendants. He stressed that the article has caused him a lot of embarrassment, unhappiness and disrepute.

All issues of liability having been settled by the default judgment, this court has only to assess and award the claimed damages.

Damages for defamation are mainly awarded for injury to reputation and to feelings. Where there is no requirement for proof of special damages as in cases of slanders actionable per se and libel as in this case, the damages are said to be “at large.” In such cases the amount of the assessment is peculiarly in the province of the tribunal. The damages can not be measured by any standard known to the law; they must be determined by a consideration of all the circumstances of the case viewed in the light of the law applicable to them.



In Justice Mwaungulu v. Malawi News[6] the court listed several factors that need to be considered. They include,
(i) the context of the defamatory material,
(ii) the nature and extent of the defamatory publication including the aspect of reproduction,
(iii) the plaintiff's standing, his reputation and status,
(iv) nature of defamation, either libel or slander,
(v) conduct of the defendants from the time of the publication
 (vi) recklessness of publication.

I take all those into consideration in this case and I award the plaintiff K400 000 exemplary damages. I also award him costs of the action.

Other factors were outlined by Kisanga.J. in the case of Said Ali Maswanya. v. African Buyer and Trader Publication Ltd and others[7],where it was said that in assessing damages for libel the court will take into account factors such as the status of the plaintiff, the extent of the circulation of the publication and the conduct of the defendant. In addition to the above the other factor to be taken into account is failure to prove justification and motive of publication.


  1. Social status
Social status is a position of an individual in that community. they are responsibility which one hold, which determine ones position in the community. Where the plaintiff is government official or minister, or priest, his position is conspicuous to every individual in the community. This being in case, a defamatory statement against such figures will attract more damages than where one is an ordinary person in the society.


  1. Publication
What are considered under this heading are the number of copies published, and the area of publication that is the countries and the continents in which the matter is circulated. So, if it is a wide coverage. Then, attracts substantial damages. In the case of Maswanya, in which the publication was circulated in 47 African countries it was considered to be a large circulation. Hence, the court awarded Tsh.200,000/= as damages.


  1. Conduct of the defendant(s)
The court has to consider whether apology was made, or demanded and refused or whether the defendant(s) responded to the summons of whether the defendant(s) was responding to communication by court or not. When the defendant is found to have been outrageous and /or un –cooperative and disdainful this aggravates the quantum of damages.
In the case of Ismail G. Lazaro v. Josephine Magomera The court assessed damages at the tune of 10,000/= justice Mroso expressed the conduct of the appellant to be disdainful in the following words:-
“Even after uttering the slanderous words of the respondent (plaintiff) no efforts at all according to the lower court’s records was made by the appellant (defendant) to tender any apology. The appellant (defendant) therefore did nothing to mitigate the damage he had done to the respondent (plaintiff). In this regard the judge awarded substantial damages.


  1. Failure to prove justification and motive of publication
In addition to the above three factors mention by Kisanga J  , Mfalila J, went further, adding two more factors which court can consider. Those are failure to prove the defence of justification by the defendant and the motive for publishing the libel. Both of those factors do not enable courts to determine with precision the amount but give a court a rough figure acceptable in the circumstances.   


Injunction

Injunctions, both interlocutory and permanent, are important. It is possible for an aggrieved party of defamation to seek an injunction in the circumstances in which, say a book or any writing which is soon to be published to be stopped from being so published.
In some cases, the claimant requires a remedy which will do more than simply prove financial compensation. There may also be circumstances in which there is a need to prevent repetition of the wrongful acts. The appropriate remedy in such cases is the equitable remedy of an injunction. For example, in libel cases, the claimant often seeks an injunction to prevent publication of defamatory material.


CONCLUSION
The assessment of damages is peculiarly the province of the trial court and the Court of Appeal will only interfere only if the finding is out of proportion to the facts. In Akuffo v. Issaka[8], it was held that the appellate court would only set aside an award if it is shown that the trial court/judge left some relevant matters out of account or that the trial court took some irrelevant matters into consideration in assessing damages.
 The Supreme Court had earlier on in Bressah v. Asante & Another[9], held the same position in the following words: “An appellate court would only interfere with the quantum of damages on the ground that the trial judge acted upon some wrong principle of law or that the amount awarded was so extremely high or so very small as to make it an erroneous estimate”.
The relationship between causation and remoteness of damage In strict theory, causation (called ‘cause in fact’) and remoteness (called ‘cause in law’) must be dealt with as two separate requirements in each case. Causation is a matter of fact and requires the claimant to prove that the negligent act caused the damage complained of. The rules concerning remoteness of damage are a matter of law and broadly require the claimant to establish that the damage was of a kind which was reasonably foreseeable. It is concerned with setting a limit on the extent of the harm for which the defendant should be held liable.
However, it is not always a clear cut issue to establish where causation ends and remoteness begins, nor is it always a simple matter to separate some aspects of remoteness from issues which arise in relation to duty of care. Both causation and remoteness of damage frequently turn on issues of policy. Both are relevant throughout the law of tort and are dealt with in connection with negligence for the sake of completeness.


Credit: The work prepared by saidy kassim, LLB student at moshi cooperative university


REFERENCES
1. Atiyah, PS, The Damages Lottery, 1997, Oxford: Hart
2. Conaghan, J and Mansell, W, The Wrongs of Tort, 1993, London: Pluto
3. Harris, D, Remedies in Contract and Tort, 1988, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson Holding, F and Kaye, P, Damages for Personal Injuries: Recent Developments and  Future Trends, 1993, London: Chancery Law
4. Markesinis, B, Tort Damages in English and German Law: A Comparison, 1985, Siena: Facolta di Giurisprudenza
5. McLean, S (ed), Compensation for Damages: an International Perspective, 1993, Aldershot: Dartmouth

WEBSITES
1.  Wikipedia.com
2.   jurist.com


[1] [1967] 1 W.L.R. 337; [1967] 1 All ER 267
[2] [1963] 1 GLR 163 - SC
[3] AHA (1987).
[4] (1995).
[5] Civil cause No.521 OF 2005
[6] Civil cause No. 518 of 1994
[7] [1981] TLR 221
[8] [1966] GLR 476
[9] [1965] 1 GLR 117
Read more »
Tags: , ,