'Historic ruling' for elderly Kenyan victims of torture during Mau Mau uprising A decision which clears the way for damages claims by three elderly Kenyan victims of torture during the Mau Mau uprising was hailed as historic today. Last year, the trio won a ruling that they had "arguable cases in law," but the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) maintained the legal actions were barred as they were brought outside the time limit. The FCO said it faced "irredeemable difficulties" on the availability of witnesses and documents and a fair trial was no longer possible. But lawyers for Wambugu Wa Nyingi, Paulo Muoka Nzili and Jane Muthoni Mara said it was an exceptional case in which Mr Justice McCombe should exercise his discretion in their favour. After he announced today that the claims could proceed to trial, solicitors Leigh Day & Co said the Government would face potentially thousands of claims from Kenyans who suffered similar torture. Senior partner Martyn Day said: "This is an historic judgment which will reverberate around the world and will have repercussions for years to come. Following this judgment, we can but hope that our Government will at last do the honourable thing and sit down and resolve these claims. 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. An FCO spokesman said it would appeal. The British Government is disappointed with today's judgment. The judgment was not a finding of liability but a procedural decision following a preliminary hearing on limitation, which allows the cases to go to a full trial. The judgment has potentially significant and far-reaching legal implications. The normal time limit for bringing a civil action is three to six years. In this case, that period has been extended to over 50 years despite the fact that the key decision makers are dead and unable to give their account of what happened. 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. We have always said that we understand the pain and grievance felt by those, on all sides, who were involved in the divisive and bloody events of the emergency period in Kenya, and it is right that those who feel they have a case are free to take it to the courts. Our relationship with Kenya and its people has moved on since the emergency period. We are now partners and the UK is not only one of the largest bilateral donors in Kenya, but also Kenya's biggest cumulative investor, and a key partner on security and other issues of benefit to both countries. Our people-to-people ties are and will remain strong and deep. In his ruling, the judge said there was "an amply sufficient documentary base" to test what was known in London about excessive use of force in the camps throughout the period of the emergency, and what London's reaction to that knowledge was. On the basis of that material, if necessary supplemented by the witness evidence that is likely still to be available - either in statements or orally in court - I am satisfied that a fair trial of any question of breach of duty in respect of each of the surviving claimants is possible. Looking at those claimants' evidence, I think that it will be quite possible to determine sufficiently clearly where and when they suffered their injuries and the official status of those responsible for inflicting them. It will also be possible, on the documents arranged and collated chronologically, together with the other evidence, to determine whether or not the injuries occurred because of a breach of duty on the part of the United Kingdom government. When he gave his ruling last year, the judge emphasised he had not found there was systematic torture in the Kenyan camps nor that, if there was, the UK Government was liable to detainees, such as the claimants, for what happened.