Daniel Mungai Karanja v Attorney General & another [2016] KEELRC 1461 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court struck out a defamation claim filed more than a year late, confirming the strict twelve-month deadline cannot be extended.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the defamation claim, filed more than twelve months after the alleged publication, is time-barred under Section 4(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act as amended by Section 20 of the Defamation Act
- 2.Whether the pendency of a criminal case against the claimant constitutes a disability under Section 22 of the Limitation of Actions Act excusing the delay
Key legal issues
#Limitation period for defamation
The defamation claim is time-barred having been filed after twelve months from the date of publication
Section 20 of the Defamation Act amended Section 4(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act to provide that an action for libel or slander may not be brought after the end of twelve months from the date the cause of action occurred. The alleged defamations occurred on 17th and 27th August 2002 and the suit was filed thereafter, outside the twelve-month window.
Whether awaiting the outcome of a criminal case is a 'disability' under Section 22
It is not; the claimant was not disabled from suing for defamation while the criminal case was pending
The court held that a person charged with a criminal offence concerning the same subject matter need not await the conclusion of the criminal case before filing a defamation suit. Section 22 addresses disabilities such as minority or mental incapacity, not the pendency of criminal proceedings against the prospective plaintiff.
Availability of extension of time for defamation claims
Section 27 of the Limitation of Actions Act does not permit extension of time for defamation; it applies only to tort claims for personal injuries arising from negligence, nuisance or breach of duty
Relying on Dr. Lucas Ndungu Munyua vs Royal Media Services Ltd, which adopted Mbito, J's decision in Lucia Wambui Ngugi vs Kenya Railways, and the Court of Appeal's decision in Mary Asundwa vs Nzoia Sugar Company Limited, the court confirmed that extension of time under Section 27 is confined to personal injury torts and does not extend to defamatory matters.
Legal principles established
#- Pendency of a criminal charge against a person is not a disability within the meaning of Section 22 of the Limitation of Actions Act so as to defer the accrual of a defamation cause of action
- An action for libel or slander must be brought within twelve months of the cause of action and no extension of time is available for defamation claims
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objection is upheld
- 2.The cause of action based on defamation is struck off the plaint
- 3.The rest of the suit to take its normal course
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Transferred from High Court civil suit No. 856 of 2005 as Cause No. 1902 of 2015 (statutory transfer to the Employment and Labour Relations Court)
Relief refused
#Continuation of the defamation claim
It was filed outside the twelve-month limitation period and pendency of the criminal case is not a disability under Section 22 of the Limitation of Actions Act
Costs
No costs order recorded in the judgment
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Accordingly the Preliminary Objection is upheld with the result that the cause of action based on defamation is struck off the plaint and the rest of the suit to take its normal course.
The suit for defamation was filed after the expiry of 12 months from the date the cause of action arose and the same is struck off. The suit will proceed on other causes of action set out in the plaint.
the court does not consider the pendency of the criminal case against the claimant to be a disability within the meaning of Section 22 of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22 of the Laws of Kenya.
Issues in the judgment
#The plaint is dated 5th June 2006 yet the suit is said to have been filed at the High Court on 11th July 2005 and transferred as Cause No. 1902 of 2015; the cause number year (2015) also appears inconsistent with a 2005 filing
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Onsarigo v Auditor General (Cause E674 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 507 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 507 (KLR)25 Feb 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Daniel Mungai Karanja v Attorney General & another [2016] KEELRC 1461 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause No. 1902 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1461/eng@2016-04-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.