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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll