[2012] KEHC 4368 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had sufficiently explained the delay in filing suit, citing his lack of legal knowledge, financial hardship, and ongoing communications with ministry officials. The court held that the application met the requirements of Section 27(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act, and that it...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 4368 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: James Muchunku Mbaabu; Respondent: P.S. Ministry of Education; Respondent: Hon. Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Case 17 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Suit
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- AN Makau
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Limitation Periods, Unlawful Dismissal, Procedural Fairness
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
James Muchunku Mbaabu
Applicant
P.S. Ministry of Education
Respondent
Hon. Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause for extension of time to file suit out of time under the Limitation of Actions Act.
- 2 Whether the delay in filing suit was excusable given the applicant's circumstances.
- 3 Whether the draft plaint should be deemed duly filed upon payment of requisite fees.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had sufficiently explained the delay in filing suit, citing his lack of legal knowledge, financial hardship, and ongoing communications with ministry officials. The court held that the application met the requirements of Section 27(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act, and that it was just and proper to grant an extension of time. The court further ordered that the draft plaint be deemed duly filed upon payment of requisite court fees within 21 days, and that costs be in the cause.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Time for applicant to file suit against the respondents is hereby enlarged.
- The applicant's draft plaint is deemed duly filed upon payment of requisite court fees within 21 days from the date of the ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
MISCELLANEOUS CASE 17 OF 2011
JAMES MUCHUNKU MBAABU............................APPLICANT
VERSUS
P.S. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION.............1ST RESPONDENT
HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL..................2ND RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The applicant through an application dated 10th January 2011 brought under Section 1A, 3, 3A, 63 (e) of Civil Procedure Act, Order XLIX Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Rules, and Section 27 and 28 of the Limitation of Actions Act, seeking the following orders:-
1. This Honourable Court be pleased to enlarge time for the applicant to file suit against the respondents herein.
2. The annexed draft plaint and verifying affidavit thereof be deemed as duly filed.
3. Any other order be made for the ends of justices
4. Costs of this application.
The application is based on the following grounds:-
1. The applicant is former civil servant employed working as a senior inspector of schools (Job Group ‘M’) under the Ministry of Education.
2. The applicant was unprocedurally and illegally dismissed from his lawful employment on 1st March, 2001 by the 1st defendant.
3. The lapsed due to a lot of communication engagement with the relevant heads of ministry.
4. The dismissal was unjustified and hence necessity to challenge the same through a suit.
5. No prejudice will be caused the intended respondents if this application is allowed.
6. The applicant was not conversant with the law of Limitation of Actions Act.
7. The applicant is a poor man who faces now destitution after the dismissal and stands to loose all his benefits thereof after his many years of service.
8. After the dismissal the applicant was so poor financially even to afford fees for counsel.
The application is supported by annexed affidavit of the applicant dated 10th January 2011 and the annextures thereto. I have considered the relevant provisions of law, and matters deponed thereto and the nature of the claim as well as the cause of delay, and I find that the application meet the requirements of Section 27 (2) of the Limitation of Actions Act and is proper application for which extension of limitation period ought to be granted.
In the circumstances the applicant’s application is allowed. I therefore make the following orders:-
1. That the time for applicant to file suit against the respondents be and is hereby enlarged.
2. The applicant draft plaint be deemed duly filed upon payment of the requisite court fees within the next 21 days from today.
3. Costs be in the cause.
Dated at Meru this 26th March 2012.
J.A. MAKAU
JUDGE
Delivered in open court in the presence of:
1. Mr. Kaimenyi h/b for Isaboke for applicant
2. No appearance for respondent
J.A. MAKAU
JUDGE