A ZIMBABWEAN man based in the United Kingdom sues the government for £750 million in compensation for being denied sex with his girlfriend while he was in prison.
Rayden Simon Kullem, claimed his human rights were being breached by the ban.
And due to an administration blunder he temporarily won his case by default – after Government solicitors failed to oppose his case.
This led to an urgent court hearing being held, in which a top judge dismissed the “preposterous” claim.
Kullem is in Hull Prison awaiting deportation to Zimbabwe following the end of his prison sentence. He has twice failed in his bid to become a UK citizen.
Kullem launched a civil claim against the Government last September on the grounds it was a breach of his human rights not to be allowed to have sex in prison.
The Government said it did not receive the claim.
But when it failed to respond, Mr Kullem was mistakenly awarded damages in default in an administration error.
He was seeking between £500 million and £750 million in compensation.
Appearing at Hull High Court on behalf of the Government, barrister Sasha Blackmore said: “We were only aware when the default judgement was received.”
Judge Jeremy Richardson QC struck out Kullem’s claim and set aside the default action.
He said: “It should have raised a few eyebrows, to put it mildly.
“This is a preposterous claim suggesting persons have the right to have mixed cells should they so wish and if that is the proper argument – which is a very novel one to put it mildly – judicial review is the right way.
“There has been a mistake, quite whose it is doesn’t really matter – things do occasionally go wrong.
“Giving somebody the amount of money you were claiming in a default judgment should have put somebody on alert.
“An erroneous judgment was made. I will set it aside.”
Judge Richardson QC told Kullem a civil court was unable to deal with such a claim. He said: “I feel your claim is farfetched but, in any event, you are in the wrong court.
“I have every suspicion that it would be doomed for failure.”
Kullem said he wished to challenge the decision.
He said: “I have followed the procedure from the beginning, putting an application in. I still feel the knock-on effect from prison.
“I do not think it is doomed. “It would be beneficial for the majority of the public. I would like to appeal. I feel very strongly about this.”
The judge ordered Kullem pay court costs of £2,850, should he find himself able to afford it. The court did not hear why Kullem had been sent to prison
