[2012] KEHC 2327 (KLR)
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to extend the statutory limitation period for filing defamation suits, as the Limitation of Actions Act expressly prescribes a twelve-month period for such actions and does not provide for extension in cases of defamation. The court's inherent jurisdiction under section 3A...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 2327 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Martha Miyandazi; Respondent: Kenyatta University
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 29 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Suit Out of Time
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Limitation Periods, Defamation Actions, Inherent Jurisdiction, Extension of Time
- 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
Martha Miyandazi
Applicant
Kenyatta University
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Suit Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant leave to file a defamation suit out of time.
- 2 Whether the court's inherent jurisdiction or the Civil Procedure Rules can be invoked to extend limitation periods prescribed by statute for defamation actions.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to extend the statutory limitation period for filing defamation suits, as the Limitation of Actions Act expressly prescribes a twelve-month period for such actions and does not provide for extension in cases of defamation. The court's inherent jurisdiction under section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act cannot be used to circumvent clear statutory provisions. Similarly, the power to enlarge time under Order 50, rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules is limited to procedural timelines under the Rules and does not extend to statutory limitation periods. Consequently, the application for leave to file suit out of time was found to be misconceived and...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for leave to file suit out of time is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
Miscellaneous Application 29 of 2011
MARTHA MIYANDAZI.…..…….....….……………….....…….. APPLICANT
VERSUS
KENYATTA UNIVERSITY…………………………….. …... RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. This is an application (notice of motion dated 7th February 2011) for leave to file suit out of time. The application is stated to be brought under section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. That Act saves the court’s inherent jurisdiction in the following terms -
“3A. Nothing in this Act shall limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.”
2. The application was served upon the Respondent by order of the court. At the hearing thereof there was no appearance for the Respondent who was aware of the hearing.
3. The cause of action in the intended suit is in defamation. Time to file a suit founded on defamation is limited to twelve months under section 4 of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22 which provides –
“4(2). An action founded on tort may not be brought after the end of three years from the date on which the cause of action accrued:
Provided that an action for libel or slander may not be brought after the end of twelve month from such date.”
5. Section 27 of Cap 22makes provision for extension of the limitation period in case of ignorance of material facts in actions for negligence. Needless to say such extension is not available in actions for libel or slander (defamation).
6. The Limitation of Actions Act having prescribed time limitation within which to bring a suit founded on defamation, and the same statute not having donated to the court jurisdiction to extend that limitation period, the court simply does not have jurisdiction to extend the limitation period. The court’s inherent jurisdiction does not include the power to ride rough-shod over express provisions of statute, or to ignore such provisions.
7. The court’s power to enlarge time under Order 50, rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (the Rules) is applicable only where -
“…time has been fixed for doing any act or taking any proceedings under (the) Rules, or by summary notice or by order of the court …”
That power cannot be used to extend any period of limitation prescribed by statute.
8. The present application is clearly misconceived and incompetent. It is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. It is so ordered.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2012
H.P.G. WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012