DAVID MAKEWA KASIKE v HON ATTORNEY GENERAL [2011] KEHC 1407 (KLR)

REPUBLICOFKENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT

ATNAKURU

HCC NO 193 OF 2010 ( O/S)

DAVID MAKEWA KASIKE .....................................................PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

HONATTORNEY GENERAL ............................................DEFENDANT

RULING

David Makewa Kasikefiled the  Originating Summons   dated 25/7/2010 seeking   leave of the court to extend time to enable him  file a suit for recovery of damages out of time. The reasons for the application are that the cause of action   arose on 2/4/2009 when the  appellant   was acquitted in PMC 1151/06 REPUBLIC VRS DAVID KASIKE MAKEWA, where   he had been charged with   the offence of fraudulent false accounting contrary to section 330 (b) of the Penal Code   and stealing by servant contrary to section 281 of the penal code. He exhibited the   judgement of the court   dated  2/4/2009. He applied for certified copies of   judgement on 5/5/09 and the same were not availed to him till 23/7/2010 (DKM2 ). Soon after counsel got a copy of the judgement, he filed this application without undue delay.

In opposing  the application, the learned   State Counsel,   Mr Kipkogei   filed a notice of   preliminary objection   on 8/3/2011, to the effect that   the application   does not   satisfy the conditions   set out under section 27 of the Limitation of Actions Act. Counsel urged   that   under section 29 of the said Act, the applicant required to demonstrate   the fact relating   to a certain   matter were not   within his knowledge when time lapsed . He submitted   that   for a claim in   malicious prosecution, he can not say that the facts relating   to the cause of action, were not within his knowledge because he became aware of the facts when judgement was delivered and time  began to run then. He relied on the case of DIVECON LTD vrs SAMANI (1995-1998) EA 48 where the court of appeal made  such a finding.

I have  considered all the submissions  made by both counsel authorities and  the sections referred to by Mr Kipkogei. I would  have expected that the applicant would exhibit to this application, a draft   plaint for the court to consider whether it discloses a cause of   action or not. None  was   exhibited .

Mr Kipkogeipurported   to rely on section 29 of   the Limitation of Actions Act but a reading of that section clearly shows that   it relates to actions relating to fatal injuries. That  section would not  be  applicable to this case because   the applicant intended to commence on  action for   malicious   prosecution, not    personal injuries.

In the decision of DIVECON LTDthe Court   of Appeal   held that   “under section 28(2) of the Limitation   of Actions Act, where an ex-parte application for the extension of time was made before commencement  of an action, leave would   only be granted where a cause of action had been established and the requirement  of  S27(2) and 29 had been fulfilled. Section 27 (2)  and 29 provide that where the period of limitation had elapsed, it had to be proved that   the material facts relating   to the cause of action were or included facts of decisive nature , were at all times outside the knowledge of the plaintiff.

In the instant case, the cause of action arose when the lower courtread its judgement   and therefore the facts were known to the appellant on 2/4/2009 . Time started  to ran on that date. The application should have filed the suit within one year. The applicant’s excuse was that he was awaiting the copy of   the judgement without which he could not have filed   the application. I do agree that it was the judgement of the lower court   that   gave rise to the cause of action   application and was a necessary  document.

The applicant claims to have written to the lower court requesting   for the ruling and the courts proceeding on 5/5/2009. However, there is no evidence that the said letter was ever received by the   Court in Molo.

It is alsointeresting  that even after the applicant  was made aware of  the judgement on 2/4/2009, it was not until a month later  that he   purportedly wrote   the letter to the court requesting for proceedings. But even with the knowledge that he intended to file civil proceedings in another court, no further steps were taken   towards procuring of the lower court  proceedings/judgement   for example  a memorandum to  the court. A copy   of   the ruling was allegedly   received on 23/7/2010. There  is no evidence from the court , the executive officer or Deputy registrar forwarding   the said   judgement to the applicant. I find that the applicant  has not shown when the copy of judgement was  received.

I find that the applicanthas not demonstrated that he acted with due diligence towards his claim within time.

Apart from failing to demonstrate that he has a cause of actionby exhibiting a draft plaint, he has not demonstrated the delay  in procuring  the judgement was occasioned by the Court . For all these reasons, this court declines   to grant the order sought from  Originating Summons   dated 25/7/2010. It is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 3rd DAY OF JUNE 2011

R.P.V WENDOH

JUDGE

PRESENT

MS Njoroge Holding brief for Ndolo for Applicant

CC: Kennedy