[2005] KEHC 1282 (KLR)

[2005] KEHC 1282 (KLR)

The court held that the application was made more than four years after the cause of action arose, far beyond the 12-month limitation period prescribed by Section 3(1) of the Public Authorities Limitation Act. The only reason advanced for the delay was lack of finances, which the court found insufficient and not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] KEHC 1282 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Mugo Mwangi; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 1715 of 2004
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to File Suit Out of Time
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods, Extension of Time, Public Authorities Liability
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Tort Law Limitation Periods Extension of Time Public Authorities Liability

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Mugo Mwangi

Applicant

The Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to File Suit Out of Time

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file suit against the Government out of time under the Public Authorities Limitation Act.
  2. 2 Whether lack of finances constitutes a disability under Section 5 of Cap 39 justifying extension of time.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the application was made more than four years after the cause of action arose, far beyond the 12-month limitation period prescribed by Section 3(1) of the Public Authorities Limitation Act. The only reason advanced for the delay was lack of finances, which the court found insufficient and not constituting a 'disability' under Section 5 of Cap 39. The court further noted that the delay was highly inordinate and that procedural inadequacies in the application would be overlooked due to the applicant's lay status, but the substantive requirements of the law were not met. Consequently, the application to file suit out of time was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to file suit out of time is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.