A seven-year-old boy and his widowed mother have filed a petition seeking Sh700 million in compensation from the government over the killing of his father by police during an "illegal raid" at their Nairobi home when the child was just five months old.
In addition to Sh18 million in special damages for loss of parental care, the petitioners are seeking Sh700 million in compensation for police brutality and the unlawful killing of an innocent citizen.
The Milimani High Court was told that the deceased, Mr Bunty Bharat Kumar Shah, was shot dead in cold blood by a contingent of about 40 police officers who raided his residence in the early hours of October 21, 2017.
“Bunty was asleep in his house when he heard commotion outside. When he peeped through the window curtain, police officers who had broken into the family home shot him at close range, killing him instantly,” their advocate submitted.
Mr Shah, the proprietor of Bobmills Limited, a mattress manufacturing company, collapsed and died on the spot. His wife, Ms Anjlee Parveen Kumar Sharma, was holding their then five-month-old son, who is now seven years old.
The judge was urged to compel the government to compensate the family, with counsel arguing that the minor would grow up without parental care as a direct result of unlawful police action.
“Police killed the boy’s father. This government has been killing its citizens. An innocent life was taken, depriving the deceased of his constitutional right to life, which the State is duty-bound to protect,” the duo’s advocate told the court.
He urged the court to award Sh100 million in punitive damages to penalise the government and deter future violations.
“These punitive damages will serve as a lesson to the State to protect the lives of its citizens,” he said, adding that successive governments since independence had violated citizens’ right to life.
The court heard that the Attorney General had not presented alternative figures to counter the Sh700 million claim. When pressed by the judge, State counsel confirmed that none had been proposed.
The matter before the court is limited to the assessment of damages, liability having already been established. In an earlier judgment, the court declared that Mr Shah’s rights and those of his family had been violated.
“A declaration is hereby made that the actions of the Attorney General, the Inspector General of Police and the Directorate of Criminal Investigations, through their agents and officers, in executing and killing the late Mr Bunty Bharat Kumar Shah were unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional,” the judgment states.
Ms Sharma has sued the Attorney General, the Inspector General of Police, the Directorate of Criminal Investigations and the Interior Cabinet Secretary as respondents.
The court heard that police officers arrived at the Westlands residential compound at about 2.49am in two armoured personnel carriers, accompanied by between 20 and 30 officers, and forced their way into the premises.
Counsel said that as officers stormed the compound, Mr Shah opened a window to check what was happening, at which point a single shot was fired, fatally injuring him.
“He died on the spot, leaving behind his wife and a five-month-old child, who is now seven years old,” the advocate said.
The lawyer argued that the circumstances surrounding the killing were critical in assessing damages, stressing that the death was neither accidental nor justified.
He urged the court to consider the deprivation suffered by the minor child, including the loss of parental care, guidance and protection.
On this basis, the petitioners are seeking Sh18 million for loss of parenthood, calculated at Sh1 million per year until the child attains adulthood.
They are also claiming Sh273.6 million for loss of future earnings, based on the deceased’s alleged monthly salary of Sh600,000 as a company director, using a multiplier of 38 years.
Court documents indicate that Mr Shah, who was 32 years old at the time of his death, earned Sh600,000 per month as a director of the Bobmil Group of Companies, in addition to an annual bonus of Sh500,000. A further Sh18 million has been claimed in respect of lost bonuses.
Other claims include Sh20 million for emotional and psychological suffering endured by the widow and child, Sh100 million in punitive and exemplary damages, and an additional Sh100 million for violation of the right to life under Article 26 of the Constitution.
“We seek Sh100 million under Article 26, which guarantees the right to life. This is a private right of the family, and we urge the court to uphold and enforce it,” counsel submitted.
The State opposed the quantum of damages, arguing that while liability was no longer contested, the amounts sought were excessive and inadequately supported.
State counsel told the court that constitutional damages must be awarded judiciously, with due regard to proportionality and comparable precedents.
She challenged the claim for loss of earnings, citing discrepancies in names appearing on payslips relied upon by the petitioners, and noting that the documents were uncertified and unsupported by employment contracts, tax records or actuarial evidence.
Awarding such damages, she argued, would be speculative.
The State further urged the court to avoid double compensation by consolidating overlapping claims, including emotional distress and constitutional violations, into a single award where appropriate.
In response, the duo’s advocate maintained that the claims were uncontroverted in substance and that the State had failed to offer alternative figures for the court’s consideration.
He reiterated that punitive damages were necessary to deter future misconduct and underscore the sanctity of the right to life.
The is expected to deliver his decision on March 20, 2026.
