General damages do not need to be quantified in pleadings according to higher courts in Tanzania. The courts in four cases found that:
1) It is not appropriate to quantify general damages as they are awarded at the discretion of the court.
2) As long as general damages are pleaded without quantification, judges can award an amount they consider fair and justified.
3) While plaintiffs may claim general damages, it is up to the court, not the plaintiff, to decide the amount awarded.
Original Description:
Case laws on quantifying general damages in pleadings in Tanzania
Original Title
QUANTIFYING GENERAL DAMAGES IN PLEADING TZ CASE LAWS... BY ISAKA KABUJE @jumong.. pending advocate..
General damages do not need to be quantified in pleadings according to higher courts in Tanzania. The courts in four cases found that:
1) It is not appropriate to quantify general damages as they are awarded at the discretion of the court.
2) As long as general damages are pleaded without quantification, judges can award an amount they consider fair and justified.
3) While plaintiffs may claim general damages, it is up to the court, not the plaintiff, to decide the amount awarded.
General damages do not need to be quantified in pleadings according to higher courts in Tanzania. The courts in four cases found that:
1) It is not appropriate to quantify general damages as they are awarded at the discretion of the court.
2) As long as general damages are pleaded without quantification, judges can award an amount they consider fair and justified.
3) While plaintiffs may claim general damages, it is up to the court, not the plaintiff, to decide the amount awarded.
1. HERIETH KASIDI VS. AGUSTINO BUSHIRI, Civil Appeal No.
480 of 2020 Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Dar Es Salaam, CORAM: MWAMBEGELE, J.A., GALEBA. J.A.. And MWAMPASHI. J.A. Delivered on 20th day of October, 2023. The court held that, “We must state at this stage that it is elementary law that general damages are awarded at the discretion of the court and therefore they need not be quantified in pleadings. What the respondent pleaded was mesne profits of Tshs. 100,000,000/= and general damages. He did not quantify the general damages. It would not have been appropriate for the respodent to quantify general damages.”
2. JOAO OLIVEIRA and SOUL OF TANZANIA LIMITED Vs. IT
STARTED IN AFRICA LIMITED and BARAJA BERNARD KANGOMA, Civil Appeal No. 186 of 2020 The Court of Appeal of Tanzania At Arusha, CORAM: MWAMBEGELE. J.A.. KEREFU. 3.A. And KIHWELO, J.A.^ Delivered on 8th February, 2023 The Court held that; “Judge awarded general damages which were neither pleaded nor proved1, …………………. Now the question is whether the learned 1 Page 21 in the stated case trial Judge was justified in awarding the amount of USD 20,000.00 as general damages. The answer is definitely in the affirmative and the reason is not farfetched2………….. Since general damages are awarded at the discretion of the court, in our considered opinion the amount of USD 20,000.00 awarded by the learned trial Judge is fair in the circumstances of the case. We therefore, find considerable merit in the submission by the respondents.”
3. TANZANIA CHINA FRIENDSHIP TEXTILE CO. LTD„ VS OUR LADY
OF THE USAMBARA SISTERS [2006] TLR 70
The Court held that;
"They [the Plaintiffs] were also claiming for general damages which they quantified to the tune of TZS. 15000000. But since general damages are awarded at the discretion of the Court, it is the Court which decides which amount to award. In that respect, normally claims of general damages are not quantified".
4. YARA TANZANIA LIMITED VS CHARLES ALOYCE MSEMWA
& OTHERS (Commercial Case 5 of 2013) [2016] Delivered on (19 February 2016)
The Court held that;
“…..It should be stated at this juncture that genera! damages are
never quantified; they are paid at the discretion of the court and, on that score, it is the court which decides which amount to award……..It was therefore improper for the plaintiff to quantify general damages.”3 Prepared by Isaka M. kabuje @ pending Advocate. 2 At page 22 in the stated case 3 At page 9 of the case