[2017] KEHC 8855 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 8855 (KLR)

The Court found that the Applicants failed to meet the stringent requirements of Section 27(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act. The reasons advanced—ongoing negotiations with the Defendant's insurer and the misplacement of the Applicants' file and treatment notes by their counsel—did not constitute material facts of a decisive character that were outside the Applicants' knowledge as required by the statute. The Court held that mistake of counsel and reliance on negotiations do not fall within the specific grounds contemplated by Section 27(2). Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution could be invoked to override the statutory limitation...

Citation
[2017] KEHC 8855 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: S C N (suing as mother and next of kin of G O O (Minor)); Applicant: M O (Minor); Defendant: Zablon Chamrela
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
3 February 2017
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 25 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Suit Out of Time
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
M Thande
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Limitation of Actions, Personal Injury Claims, Mistake of Counsel, Procedural Technicalities
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Tort Law Family and Children Extension of Time Limitation of Actions Personal Injury Claims Mistake of Counsel Procedural Technicalities

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S C N (suing as mother and next of kin of G O O (Minor))

Applicant

M O (Minor)

Applicant

Zablon Chamrela

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicants have satisfied the requirements under Section 27 of the Limitation of Actions Act for extension of time to file suit out of time.
  2. 2 Whether mistake of counsel or ongoing negotiations constitute sufficient grounds for extension of limitation period under Kenyan law.
  3. 3 Whether Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution can be invoked to override statutory limitation periods.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Applicants failed to meet the stringent requirements of Section 27(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act. The reasons advanced—ongoing negotiations with the Defendant's insurer and the misplacement of the Applicants' file and treatment notes by their counsel—did not constitute material facts of a decisive character that were outside the Applicants' knowledge as required by the statute. The Court held that mistake of counsel and reliance on negotiations do not fall within the specific grounds contemplated by Section 27(2). Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution could be invoked to override the statutory limitation...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The Originating Summons dated 16.9.15 is dismissed.
  • There shall be no order as to costs.