[2008] KEHC 2874 (KLR)

[2008] KEHC 2874 (KLR)

The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate that there were material facts of a decisive character relating to his cause of action that were outside his knowledge, as required by section 27(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act. The applicant knew he had been acquitted and believed he had been wrongfully...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] KEHC 2874 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Peter Kamau Josephat; Respondent: The Attorney General; Respondent: David George Katiba
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 941 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Suit Out of Time
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Leave to File Out of Time, Unlawful Arrest, Malicious Prosecution, Defamation
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Tort Law Limitation of Actions Leave to File Out of Time Unlawful Arrest Malicious Prosecution Defamation

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

Peter Kamau Josephat

Applicant

The Attorney General

Respondent

David George Katiba

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated material facts of a decisive character outside his knowledge to warrant extension of time under section 27 of the Limitation of Actions Act.
  2. 2 Whether the reasons advanced by the applicant justify granting leave to file suit out of time.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate that there were material facts of a decisive character relating to his cause of action that were outside his knowledge, as required by section 27(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act. The applicant knew he had been acquitted and believed he had been wrongfully arrested and maliciously prosecuted. The need to obtain proceedings and judgment, or for his lawyers to confirm the validity of his claim, did not constitute sufficient grounds to extend time. Therefore, the application for leave to file suit out of time was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for leave to file suit out of time is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.