header-logo header-logo

Mau Mau victims can proceed

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll