[2010] KEHC 3218 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide a credible explanation for the delay of over five years in filing the suit. The mere unavailability of a police abstract was not a sufficient reason to prevent the institution of the suit, as such a document could have been obtained during the pendency of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 3218 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Tabitha Njoki Warutere; Respondent: Simon Kariuki Ngugi; Respondent: Peter Ngaruiya Gathenya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Case 329 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Ex Parte Originating Summons for Leave to File Suit Out of Time
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Limitation of Actions, Leave to File Out of Time, Negligence Claims, Fatal Accidents
- 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
Tabitha Njoki Warutere
Applicant
Simon Kariuki Ngugi
Respondent
Peter Ngaruiya Gathenya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Ex Parte Originating Summons for Leave to File Suit Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has satisfied the requirements under section 27 and 28 of the Limitation of Actions Act to warrant leave to file suit out of time.
- 2 Whether the delay in filing suit is sufficiently explained to justify extension of time.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide a credible explanation for the delay of over five years in filing the suit. The mere unavailability of a police abstract was not a sufficient reason to prevent the institution of the suit, as such a document could have been obtained during the pendency of the proceedings. The applicant did not specify when the investigations ended or when the police abstract was eventually obtained. The court emphasized that the strict requirements of section 28 of the Limitation of Actions Act must be met before leave can be granted, and in this case, those requirements were not satisfied. The court also considered the prejudice to the intended...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for leave to file suit out of time is dismissed.
- There is no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Miscellaneous Case 329 of 2008
TABITHA NJOKI WARUTERE ...............................................APPLICANT
V E R S U S
1. SIMON KARIUKI NGUGI
2. PETER NGARUIYA GATHENYA .....................................RESPONDENTS
R U L I N G
The Applicant seeks by this ex parte originating summons dated 20th May, 2008 leave under section 27 of the Limitations Actions Act, Cap 22 (the Act) to file suit out of time. The intended suit is for recovery of damages arising out of the death of the Applicant’s husband in a road accident that occurred on 2nd April, 2001.
Being a claim in the tort of negligence, the suit should have been filed within three years from the date when the cause of action arose. The suit should thus have been filed on or before 1st April, 2004. The delay is therefore over 5 years.
The Applicant says in her supporting affidavit that she acquired the necessary letters of administration ad litem to the estate of her deceased husband on 6th May, 2001, but that she was unable to get the police abstract since the matter was still under investigation. She does not state when those investigations ended or when she was able to get the police abstract. In any event, want of a police abstract in an accident should not have prevented the Plaintiff from filing suit as the same could have been obtained during subsistence of the suit.
There is no credible explanation given in the supporting affidavit why the Applicant has waited eight years before deciding to file suit. It would be unjust to burden the intended defendants with a suit whose cause of action arose nearly nine years ago. With the passage of time memory fails, witnesses relocate or die, and document may be lost.
I find that the strict requirements of section 28 of the Act have not been met. Subsection (2) of section 27 of the Act requires that the requirements of section 28 aforesaid be met by the Applicant before leave to file suit out of time can be granted.
In the circumstances I find no merit in this application. It is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010
H. P. G. WAWERU
J U D G E
DELIVERED THIS 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010