Lawyer Omari says Utumishi victims families Could Receive Over 200 M if they Sue

Added: 2026-06-02

[00:00:00]Every Kenyan is mourning.

[00:00:03]On behalf of Kota Helicopter, my crew Bramwel, Cyrus and uh Vivian, and myself, we pass our condolences to the family of those who lost their dear ones, to the students of that school who got injuries, to the to everybody in this country. It was an unfortunate issue.

[00:00:31]So, what is the remedy for those parents whose children have died?

[00:00:41]Is there a law that deals with compensating these parents?

[00:00:48]There are also the 16 students whose life got lost.

[00:00:54]There are properties of the students that have been burned and destroyed.

[00:01:01]There are those ones who have gone to get treatment from the trauma and injuries that they sustained. There is the trauma that will affect these children forever.

[00:01:16]There are parents who the shock and trauma will be there forever.

[00:01:23]Is there a law to deal with this question?

[00:01:27]We went and looked at Kota Helicopter, and we found out that a similar incident happened in Changuli Boys, where originally 62 students died, but later the numbers increased to 67.

[00:01:45]Today, we have the number at Utumishi Academy being 16. The number is likely to increase.

[00:01:53]How did the parents of the 62 students deal with this question. We went and found out they went to the High Court.

[00:02:04]And this is in the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi. That is Civil Suit number 415 of 20 2002.

[00:02:15]This is Daniel Kiamba Kamiti suing on behalf of 62 others.

[00:02:24]This is a representative suit. Daniel Kiamba Kamiti and 62 others.

[00:02:32]Those are the plaintiffs versus David Mutiso Kilo Stephen Kasyoka Makau and the Teacher Service Commission.

[00:02:41]That is also the Board of Governors Chunguli Mixed Secondary School. Today we have the Board of Management. And the Attorney General of Kenya as the fifth defendant.

[00:02:55]This was a case that was heard by Dr. Judge Jackel Saragon.

[00:03:04]Remember Justice Saragon contested to be the judge of the Supreme Court in the just concluded interviews. He lost. He had this matter and these were the facts of that case.

[00:03:24]Daniel Kiamba Kamiti and 62 others here and after referred to as first to 63 plaintiffs sued David Mutiso Kilo, Stephen Kasyoka Makau, the Teacher Service Commission, the Board of Governors Chunguli Mixed Secondary School, and the Attorney General here and referred to as the first to the fifth defendant.

[00:03:47]In on March 8th, 2002.

[00:03:51]What did they suit?

[00:03:53]They wanted payment for the value of the personal effects, school uniforms, books, mattresses, shoes, boxes, beddings, buckets, and clothes belonging to the students who perished.

[00:04:09]Two, the general damages under the law reform act. Three, the general damages under the Fatal Accident Act. Four, the cost of the suit. And lastly, interests on their behalf.

[00:04:22]That is what they went to court.

[00:04:27]>> [snorts] >> The plaintiffs' children perished in the inferno of the night on the 26th of March 2001.

[00:04:37]While the deceased children were students at Chamguli Mixed Secondary School.

[00:04:42]It is the plaintiffs' averment that the fourth defendant, a dormitory, caught fire and was set on fire as a result of this.

[00:04:53]What did the government respond?

[00:04:55]The defendant, that is the government, on the other hand, are of the view that the dormitory in which the students were burnt was set on fire by known arsonists. Meaning that the fire was not set and was not caught by the negligence of the first defendant. So, the government said they there was no negligence on the part of the government.

[00:05:20]CS Wakilis They are two senior advocates and they are CSs, Migosi Ogamba, and Kipchumba Murkomen have admitted there was negligence on government.

[00:05:40]All the teachers who are there were employees of government.

[00:05:44]And therefore, they cannot say the negligence will go to anybody.

[00:05:51]Paragraph six of the judgement.

[00:05:53]Pursuant to the provisions of section four one of the Fatal Accidents Act the plaintiffs are empowered as the parents of their deceased children to bring this action to claim damages either as the executors or administrators of the estate of their deceased children against the defendant.

[00:06:15]Under the Fatal Accidents Act a child if a child dies, a father needs to go get letters of administration.

[00:06:29]And they will sue for compensation.

[00:06:32]So those parents of Utumishi you have nothing. You you you are protected by the law.

[00:06:42]The evidence standard showed that the students dormitory became a death trap.

[00:06:47]The students lives were plucked cruelly in the most horrifying manner.

[00:06:52]It can be safely stated here that this tragedy and disaster was deprived has deprived this country of future lawyers.

[00:07:04]We could get very serious lawyers from the students who have died. Some could be the Chief Justice. Some could be senior counsels. Some could be the Deputy Chief Justice.

[00:07:16]Doctors teachers journalists and the like.

[00:07:23]Paragraph seven.

[00:07:24]In the wee hours of 26th March 2001, the dormitory in which the plaintiffs children were sleeping in was set on fire by unknown arsonists. Several students managed to escape but 63 of them were unable that they perished.

[00:07:51]The judge in paragraph 10 says, [clears throat] "I agree with the submissions of the plaintiff's counsel that there was a nexus between the previous unrest and the burning of the school that led to the deaths of the 63 students."

[00:08:13]Joseph Musyoki Malau, a witness and a former student, he was witness number five, that is PW5, who survived the arson, told this court that on the fateful night, the dormitory housed 134 students, yet the dormitory had the capacity of only housing 60 students. While students at Utumishi Academy, more, what is the required capacity of that student?

[00:08:49]If they were more, then the government will be held responsible.

[00:08:54]Paragraph 13, the judge says, "It is also curious from the testimonies of DW1, DW2, that they they never searched inside the ill-fated dormitory, nor involved the students in the search of the petrol of the strong smell, which was apparent.

[00:09:14]The duo failed in their duties as administrators in whose hands and responsibility is the safety and security of the students was left to perform the simple and straightforward safety measure. Were the students of Utumishi in hands of government officers? Yes.

[00:09:36]The school management is a is a statutory organ created by government.

[00:09:42]The teachers are teachers of employed by the government earning by the government.

[00:09:50]Paragraph 15, the judge says, "If the government which is represented by the Attorney General had been keen in securing the safety of the students, it could not have allowed the these the students to occupy a dormitory which in essence acted as a death trap."

[00:10:10]It is the government that allowed the students to be in that automation dormitory.

[00:10:16]I've already alluded that the the government had a duty to care towards the students who are in their custody and care. The government has a duty of care.

[00:10:29]You cannot run away when parents pay school fees, take the students to school, this government has a duty of care.

[00:10:44]He says, "The government is vicariously liable for the negligent actions and or omissions of the doer which led to the painful loss of young innocent lives.

[00:10:55]The government is liable vicariously.

[00:10:58][clears throat] The government cannot escape because it is the statutory body called the Board of Management established under the Education Act that manages, governs, and controls, and supervises the school."

[00:11:18]So, the court found out that this one is not the government cannot run away from that. So, the court now decided how do they allocate compensation?

[00:11:34]There is the first limb.

[00:11:37]Having determined the question of liability, let me now turn my attention to the issue in relation to quantum.

[00:11:44]When it comes to assessment of damages, learned counsel were in agreement that the same be done according to the following heads: pain and suffering.

[00:11:55]Paragraph 17.

[00:11:56]On the first head of pain and suffering, the judge says, "The deceased students were aged between 14 and 19, just like the ones at Utumishi, at the time they perished.

[00:12:10]Evidence tendered showed that they enjoyed robust health.

[00:12:14]The details of how the deceased met their death was horrific.

[00:12:19]They all tried to escape from the dormitory, but were unable to do so, since they were crowded with only one exit door.

[00:12:27]They fell over each other as the inferno consumed them.

[00:12:31]The evidence presented to this court indicated that they all screamed for help, but no one came to their rescue.

[00:12:39]They silently perished in the raging fire.

[00:12:44]Their suffering was painful and slow. I'm convinced that in the circumstances of this case, an award of Kenya shillings 150,000 for pain and suffering is appropriate.

[00:12:57]The judge awarded 150,000 for pain and suffering.

[00:13:02]Paragraph 18.

[00:13:04]The secondly head is the loss of expectation of life.

[00:13:09]This claim is based on the principle that a deceased person was deprived of normal expectation of life due to the alleged negligence of the part of the tortfeasor.

[00:13:21]On this head, conventional figures are normally awarded.

[00:13:26]I have considered the previous decisions of this court and it is apparent that this court has so far made awards on this head of between 50,000 and 300. In my assessment and in the circumstances of this case, I think an award the judge awarded Kenya shillings 200,000 for each lost life in the head of loss of expectation of life.

[00:13:54]Three, the third limb is loss of dependence.

[00:13:58]The loss of dependence the defendant the the government on the other hand argued that the seized the deceased kids were not earning. They were between 14 and 19 and they [clears throat] were below the age of majority, there is no justification justification to make an award.

[00:14:23]Government can be very insensitive.

[00:14:26]They're saying these kids were not earning.

[00:14:30]What did the judge say?

[00:14:32]I have found both the plaintiff and the defendants not persuasive on this head.

[00:14:37]The court and the court of appeal have preferred to make a global award instead of applying to a multi a multiplicand as proposed by the plaintiff.

[00:14:49]The plaintiff's hopes the parents hopes dreams and aspirations that their children would one day reach for their stars and support them at old age were dashed and went in flames. The judge says, every parent wants their kids to grow.

[00:15:14]Every parent expects that when the kids grow they'll become senior lawyers, they'll become senior doctors, they'll become senior journalists. They'll become senior police officers. Then they will assist the parents.

[00:15:30]So, there's no parent who does not expect return [clears throat] of investment from their children. All those parents of Utumishi Academy, they were crying because they their dreams about their children their dreams of how the children will take care of them when they are sick, when they are old have been dashed.

[00:15:57]What did the judge do?

[00:15:59]The judge went ahead.

[00:16:01]I share the same view with Justice Kimondo. In the circumstances of this, I will award a global sum to each plaintiff of Kenyan shillings 300,000 shillings.

[00:16:13]What is the total? The judge awarded in total 150,000 shillings for pain and suffering times 63 students. That is 9,450,000.

[00:16:30]For loss of expectation of life, each deceased child 200,000 times 63 students, 12,600.

[00:16:41]Loss of dependents for each lost life of a a student 300,000 shillings times 63, 18,900. 900 net total 40,950,000 950,000 shillings.

[00:16:57]They also awarded the costs of the suit and also the interests of uh the court rate from the date of judgment until the full payment of these money. Dated and signed in open court on 3rd of March 2016 by Justice J.K.

[00:17:21]Sergon. What are the lessons that the parents of Utumishi Academy, you have a right, of course, to sue the government of the Republic of Kenya for compensation.

[00:17:36]The compensation is on three issues.

[00:17:40]One, pain and suffering for those who died.

[00:17:46]Two, loss of expectation of the parents.

[00:17:51]Three, loss of dependency.

[00:17:55]And lastly, for those who didn't their children didn't die, but they have trauma. They have undergone serious serious problems. They will also sue the government.

[00:18:10]In my own assessment, the government is likely to pay more than 200 million shillings as compensation to the parents of Utumishi Academy.

[00:18:24]Mark my words. The government of Kenya is likely to pay a compensation of over 200 million shillings. Remember, this 40 million was a judgment in 2016.

[00:18:42]We are 10 years since 2016.

[00:18:46]This is a judgment that is going to be done. This is an action that is starting in 2016 is likely to be determined around in 20 2020 2028 2029.

[00:19:02]That is why my projections are that government is likely to pay over 200 million shillings in compensation for the parents of Utumishi Academy. Wakili Danstan Omari, always a pleasure being brought this episode as we endeavor to bring you the law, but we wish everybody affected and infected from the Utumishi Academy fiasco, our condolences. Thank you.