The Court of Appeal has ruled that the 2017 killing of businessman Bunty Bharat Kumar Shah, former director of the Bobmil Group of Companies, by masked police officers at his Westlands home, was unlawful and a violation of constitutional rights.
A three-judge bench comprising Justices David Musinga, Mumbi Ngugi, and George Odunga delivered the landmark ruling, declaring that the actions of the Attorney General (AG), Inspector General (IG) of Police, and Cabinet Secretary for Interior breached Shah’s right to life and his child’s right to parental care.
“A declaration is hereby made that the action on the part of the AG, IG, and Interior CS, through their agents, servants, officials, and persons working under their direction or instructions in executing and killing the late Bunty Bharat Kumar Shah, was contrary to the provisions of the Constitution,” the judges stated.
Court Orders Return of Case for Assessment of Damages
The appellate judges overturned an earlier High Court ruling that had dismissed a petition filed by Shah’s widow, Anjlee Parveen Kumar Sharma, and directed that the case be sent back to the High Court for the assessment of damages.
They emphasized that constitutional courts have the mandate to determine State responsibility for human rights violations, while criminal courts handle individual criminal culpability. The ruling clarified that victims or their families are entitled to pursue criminal, civil, and constitutional remedies concurrently.
Background of the Case
The fatal shooting occurred in the early hours of October 21, 2017, when a convoy of police vehicles — including an armored personnel carrier — stormed Shah’s Westlands home. According to court filings, officers rammed through the gate, prompting Shah to open a bedroom window to assess the situation, whereupon he was shot in the chest by a police sniper.
Shah’s widow, Sharma, told the court that police blocked an ambulance from entering the compound and later disabled CCTV cameras to conceal their actions. She alleged that the police later admitted the raid was based on faulty intelligence.
Despite lodging complaints with the Parklands Police Station and the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA), Sharma said no meaningful investigations were ever concluded.
Widow Seeks Over Sh700 Million in Damages
In her petition, Sharma sought compensation for multiple constitutional violations, including:
- Sh100 million for unlawful execution
- Sh18 million for denial of parental care
- Sh292 million in lost earnings
- Sh20 million for emotional and psychological harm
- Sh200 million for loss of life plan
- Sh100 million in exemplary and punitive damages
She also requested an order compelling the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to arrest and prosecute those responsible.
State’s Defense and Court’s Response
The AG, IG, and Interior CS opposed the petition, arguing that it did not raise constitutional issues and should have been pursued as a civil tort claim under the Law Reform Act and the Fatal Accidents Act. They also disputed the admissibility of CCTV evidence, claiming it was tampered with.
The Court of Appeal dismissed these arguments, ruling that the State cannot evade accountability by hiding behind procedural technicalities. It reaffirmed that the right to life and State accountability for unlawful killings are fundamental constitutional principles.
Significance of the Ruling
The judgment reinforces Kenya’s legal precedent that extrajudicial killings by police are unconstitutional and that victims’ families have the right to constitutional redress even while criminal investigations are pending.
The case now returns to the High Court, where damages will be assessed and accountability measures pursued.