Court awards university student Sh8 million for police brutality

A university student who was beaten and detained by police during a 2019 protest has been awarded Sh8 million in damages.

Allan Omondi, then a student at Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, was accosted by four officers on November 11, 2019.

Justice Patricia Nyaundi ruled the state violated Omondi's rights and the evidence of police brutality was indisputable.

“He states that uniformed police officers beat, kicked and restrained him in degrading positions, conduct widely captured on video and disseminated through local and international media,” the court heard.

He was taken to Juja police station, where the beating continued until about 4.30pm, before being placed in a crowded, dirty, poorly ventilated cell. 

Omondi further told the court the officers drove around, threatening his life and accusing him, on account of his dreadlocks, of belonging to "Mungiki sect". 

Despite informing officers he required an inhaler due to a chest condition, no assistance was provided.

“He contends that the assault, his subsequent detention without charge and the denial of medical attention constituted a wholesale departure from the constitutional and statutory obligations governing police conduct.”

The incident, captured on video and widely disseminated through local and international media, prompted an investigation by the Independent Policing Oversight Authority, which identified the officers involved and forwarded its file to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

In a letter dated June 2, 2021, the ODPP acknowledged sufficient evidence to support charges of assault causing actual bodily harm but recommended that the matter proceed by way of diversion, given administrative sanctions already initiated against the implicated officers.

The diversion decision meant the police officers who assaulted Omondi should not proceed to criminal trial but instead be resolved through an alternative dispute resolution mechanism.

The petitioner told the court he was aware of the planned student demonstrations that day but was not part of them. 

He testified that he reported the incident to the police and retained the Occurrence Book number, though he no longer had the physical document. 

He confirmed he had no documentation showing the demonstrations were authorised. 

The state opposed the petition, arguing the diversion decision was a legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion under Article 157. 

The ODPP maintained that once the petitioner elected to pursue a diversion agreement with the National Police Service, he could not simultaneously fault the office for acting within that framework. 

The Inspector General opposed the petition, arguing that Omondi failed to specify exactly how the police chief's office violated his constitutional rights. 

However, the court rejected this defense, ruling the petition was precise and holding the Inspector General liable for the brutal actions of his officers.

Justice Nyaundi also held that the subsequent institutional inaction by the ODPP compounded the injustice.

“The record shows that the Director of Public Prosecutions determined that the matter should proceed by way of diversion. Following that decision, the petitioner made repeated follow‑ups with both the Inspector General and the Director of Public Prosecutions, but these efforts yielded no progress,” the judge observed.  

“Under the Diversion Policy, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is the custodian of the diversion process. It is that office which approves matters for diversion, prepares and formalises diversion agreements, and maintains the register of diversion cases."

"The statutory and policy framework therefore places the responsibility for operationalising diversion squarely upon the second respondent.”

The judge further held that the inertia of the ODPP compromised his right of access to justice under Article 48.

The court issued a declaration that the violent assault and subsequent arrest and detention occasioned a violation of the right to human dignity and freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. 

The petitioner was awarded Sh8 million for the violation of his rights, payable by the first and second respondents, together with costs of the petition.