Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 3144 (QB) (21 November 2018)

Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 3144 (QB) (21 November 2018)

The claim is statute-barred and the court declines to exercise discretion under s.33 Limitation Act 1980 due to extreme prejudice to the Defendant arising from the passage of time, lack of documentary evidence, absence of corroborative witnesses, and inability to investigate the core allegations. The evidence is not sufficiently cogent to allow a fair trial.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 3144
Parties
Claimant: Kimathi & Ors; Defendant: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Group Litigation Order (glo) Personal Injury Claim / Final Judgment on Individual Test Claimant (tc 20)
Outcome
Claim dismissed as statute-barred; court declines to exercise s.33 discretion.
Legal Topics
Assault, Villagisation, Limitation Act 1980 S.33, Evidence, Colonial Administration, Movement Orders
Tort Personal Injury Limitation Assault Villagisation Limitation Act 1980 S.33 Evidence Colonial Administration +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kimathi & Ors

Claimant

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Group Litigation Order (glo) Personal Injury Claim / Final Judgment on Individual Test Claimant (tc 20)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether TC 20's claims for assault during villagisation are statute-barred
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise discretion under s.33 Limitation Act 1980 to allow the claim to proceed
  3. 3 Whether the evidence is sufficiently cogent given the passage of time and lack of documents/witnesses

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is statute-barred and the court declines to exercise discretion under s.33 Limitation Act 1980 due to extreme prejudice to the Defendant arising from the passage of time, lack of documentary evidence, absence of corroborative witnesses, and inability to investigate the core allegations. The evidence is not sufficiently cogent to allow a fair trial.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed as statute-barred; court declines to exercise s.33 discretion.

Orders

  • No damages awarded to TC 20.
  • Claim struck out for limitation.