header-logo header-logo

10 October 2012
Issue: 7533 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Mau Mau victims can proceed

Kenyan torture victims given permission to proceed with their personal injury action

The High Court has given three Kenyan torture victims permission to proceed with their personal injury action despite the British government’s argument the claims are time-barred.

In Mutua and others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2012] All ER (D) 48 (Oct), Mr Justice McCombe held the limitation periods could be overridden. The judgment could pave the way for thousands of similar claims.

The claimants are seeking damages for injuries suffered more than 50 years ago, while in detention between 1954 and 1959, during the Mau Mau uprising. They claim the British government is vicariously liable.

The British government conceded the claimants were tortured by British officials, but argued the claims were time-barred by the three-year time limit imposed by the Limitation Act 1980, and that a fair trial could not be possible due to the passage of time.

McCombe J ruled that “a fair trial on this part of the case does remain possible and that the evidence on both sides remains significantly cogent”.

In April 2011, the court rejected the British government’s claim that the Kenyan government was legally responsible for any abuses committed by the British colony.

Martyn Day, senior partner at Leigh Day & Co, says: “There will undoubtedly be victims of colonial torture from Malaya to the Yemen from Cyprus to Palestine who will be reading this judgment with great care.”

A Foreign Office spokesperson says: “Since this is an important legal issue, we have taken the decision to appeal. In light of the legal proceedings it would not be appropriate for the government to comment any further on the detail of the case. At the same time, we do not dispute that each of the claimants in this case suffered torture and other ill treatment at the hands of the colonial administration.”

Issue: 7533 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll