By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

Lord Reid observed, there are no degrees of nullity. Any as has been submitted in thisReview, “viodable” is a meaningless term in this context. Lord Wilberforce said: “Thereare dangers in the use of this word [nullity] if it draws with it the difficulty distinctionbetween what is void and what is voidable, and I certainly do not wish to be taken torecognize that this distinction exist or to analyze it if it does. “Not the lease welcomefeature of the new decision is that it ought to obviate this confusion and unnecessaryexercise.Human Rights in TanzaniaThe Defendant did not challenge these figures either in cross-examination of theplaintiffs’ witnesses or through its own witnesses. The figure s appears reasonable and Iaccept them. In the event the claim for special damages is allowed as prayed at Shs.545,600/=.In considering the claim for general damages this court considers the following factors:(a). The plaintiffs have been deprived of the use of their land partially from March, 1979and totally from January, 1981 until do-date. Excluding the 1980/81 crop which has beencovered by the award of special damages, the plaintiffs have lost crops for three years.(b). On only 428 ½ acres of land the plaintiffs were capable of producing over shs.500,000/= worth of crops per annum. The total land they were deprived from using was6,095 acres of pasture and 2030 acres of arable land.On the other hand I consider that the plaintiffs during their period of deprivation did nothave to use any inputs in the form of seed, fertilizer, labour fuel etc.Considering that the 1 st Plaintiff had only 200 acres of land under cultivation and that theexact use to which the pasture was put was not established, I ward the 1 st plaintiff shs.250,00/= as general damages. The 2 nd to the 67 th plaintiffs, who owned and used 1830acres of land are awarded shs. 1,300,000/= in general damages – the same to beapportioned between them in proportion to the acreage held byte each before their72