A widow and the seven-year-old son of a man who the court heard was shot dead during a police operation in Nairobi have asked the High Court to award them more than Sh500 million in damages.
The application comes as the court prepares to determine compensation following an earlier finding that the State was liable.
Appearing before Justice Chacha Mwita on Tuesday, Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi, representing the petitioners, told the court that the issue of liability had already been settled by the Court of Appeal in a judgment delivered on September 12, 2025.
“A declaration is hereby made that the action on the part of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd respondents through their agents, servants, officials, and persons working under their direction and/or instructions in executing and killing the late Bunty Bharat Kumar Shah was unlawful, illegal, and contrary to the Constitution,” the judgment states.
The respondents in the case are the Attorney General, the Inspector General of Police, the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Cabinet Secretary for Interior and Coordination of National Government.
Ahmednasir told the court that the matter now before it was limited to the assessment of damages.
The case arises from the death of Shah, who died in the early hours of October 21, 2017, during a police operation at a residential compound in Westlands, Nairobi.
According to submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, police officers arrived at the compound at about 2.49 am in two armoured personnel carriers, accompanied by between 20 and 30 officers, and forced their way into the premises.
Counsel submitted that as officers entered the compound, the deceased opened a window to establish what was happening, at which point a 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 senior counsel added.
Ahmednasir argued that the context in which the death occurred was critical to the assessment of damages, maintaining that the killing was not accidental.
He urged the court to consider the loss suffered by the minor child, particularly the deprivation 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 reaches adulthood,” he submitted.
The family is also seeking Sh273.6 million for loss of future earnings, based on the deceased’s alleged monthly salary of Sh600,000 as a director of a manufacturing company, using a multiplier of 38 years.
“The deceased, who was 32 years old at the time of his death, served as a director and earned a monthly salary of Sh600,000 in addition to an annual bonus of Sh500,000,” court documents indicate.
An additional Sh18 million has been claimed in respect of annual bonuses.
Other claims include Sh20 million for emotional and psychological suffering suffered by the widow and child, Sh100 million in punitive and exemplary damages, and a further 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. Given that the father was killed — the family’s breadwinner — they are entitled to compensation. This is a private right of the family. This being a constitutional court, we urge the court to affirm and uphold that right, and to take appropriate measures to enforce and protect it,” he stated.
The State, however, opposed the figures, arguing that while liability was no longer in dispute, the damages sought were excessive and not sufficiently proven.
State counsel Esther Opiyo submitted that constitutional damages must be awarded judiciously, with regard to proportionality and comparable awards.
“We reiterate that constitutional damages are meant to strike a balance, avoid speculation, and ensure proportionality,” she submitted.
She challenged the claim for loss of earnings, noting discrepancies in the names appearing on payslips relied on by the petitioners and arguing that the documents were uncertified and unsupported by employment contracts, tax records, or actuarial projections.
Awarding such damages, she said, 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, Ahmednasir maintained that the claims were unchallenged on substance and that the State had failed to propose any alternative figures for the court’s consideration.
He argued that punitive damages were necessary to deter future misconduct and to underscore the importance of the right to life.
Justice Mwita reserved judgment and indicated that a
decision on damages will be delivered on March 20, 2026.
