Officer who locked couple's house for a week ordered to pay Sh700,000

Has a police officer ever maliciously or unnecessarily arrested or harassed you? Well, there is a precedent that you can seek compensation from him or her, individually, for violation of your constitutional rights.

On the flip side, are you a serving officer who has a habit of bullying, harrasing and or arresting Kenyans without a crime or a cause? The Standard on Sunday can tell you that you will be alone when the long hand of the law heats up your heels.

The story of Lucas Mutua, his wife Monica Katilo’s case against police officer Evans Gitau, the Independent Police Oversight Authority (IPOA), and the Attorney General is sweet to the ears of Kenyans and a ‘pinch your ears’  lesson to police officers who may not want to land where Gitau is now.

His appetite for 'mbuzi’ has eventually landed him in hot soup.

Gitau will pay Mutua and Katilo Sh 700,000 from his pockets, accounts, salary, or all three. High Court Judge Lawrence Mugambi said that his employer cannot shoulder the burden because he was not executing police duties.

Justice Mugambi observed that Gitau had been warned by his bosses.

“The immediate censure of the unlawful conduct by the first respondent’s superior in the presence of the petitioner without any response from the first respondent is clear evidence that the first respondent's action was completely unjustified and had nothing to do with the performance of police duties.  The quick intervention by the first respondent superior absolves the employer from the first respondent unconstitutional and unlawful conduct against the petitioners,” said Justice Mugambi.

The judge said that IPOA and AG had done nothing wrong. Instead, he said, there was evidence that the officer had independently violated Mutua and Katilo’s rights.

“As a matter of fact, the petitioner’s own account, as captured in his affidavit, is that when they went to Mutuini Police Station and reported the first respondent to his superior, the first respondent was reprimanded in their presence and ordered to return the keys he had impounded. This demonstrates that the first respondent was on a frolic of his own, and his superiors or employers had nothing to do with his actions. It is manifest that those actions did not occur as part of execution of the first respondent’s duties,” the judge added.

Mutua, in his case, narrated that Gitau, who was stationed at Mutuini Police Station, Kayole, Nairobi County, went to Mutua’s house on May 23, 2021, locked it with a new padlock, and went away with the keys.

He told the judge that they had spent a week in the streets with their four-year-old.

Afterward, the court heard that Gitau called Mutua and directed him to go to Mutuini Police Station with a ‘mbuzi’  to get the key to the house.

According to him, the police officer never informed him whether he had committed any crime, and he did not state the reason for displacing them by locking their house.

He lamented that his pleas to Gitau to return the keys fell on deaf ears. 

In addition, the court heard that the officer blocked his phone number due to Mutua’s persistent phone calls.

In his affidavit, Mutua said that he reported the matter at Mutuini Police Station. The Commanding Officer summoned Gitau to explain why he had displaced the couple.

The man stated that the officer did not give any explanation and was ordered to open the house.

He further submitted that Gitau unlawfully entered the house and invaded their right to privacy. 

Mutua also argued that Gitau treated him, Katilo, and their child in an inhumane and degrading manner, and they were even forced to live on the streets.

“It is argued that this is contrary to every person’s right to human dignity and freedom from cruel treatment and physical and psychological torture. This right is similarly protected under the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights. Counsel, in a nutshell, was certain that the first respondent’s actions violated the Petitioner’s stated constitutional right,” argued Mutua.

He urged the court to find that they were entitled to compensation for the mental anguish, suffering, humiliation, and distress that they had to endure. 

The two sought Sh10 million in compensation.

Despite being served with the court papers, Gitau, IPOA, and the AG never responded.

Justice Mugambi said that there was no rebuttal or any form of justification given for Gitau’s behavior.

“Concerning proof, there was no rebuttal or any form of justification given by any of the respondents against the brutal and reprehensible conduct that the first respondent did of deposing the petitioners from their house and having them spend the night with their child out in the streets for a week,” he said.