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

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll