Huruma collapse building verdict: Owner jailed for 52 deaths as court acquits state officials

Rescue teams had to demolish adjacent structures to access the collapsed 5-storey building.[Courtesy]

A Nairobi court has acquitted four government officials charged over the 2016 Huruma building collapse, in a controversial ruling that instead saw the property owner jailed for a tragedy that claimed 52 lives.

In a detailed judgment, Milimani Magistrate Gilbert Shikwe cleared officials from the National Construction Authority (NCA) and Nairobi County Government, including Director of Planning and Compliance Justus Kathenge and Mathare Sub-county Administrator Seline Ogallo.

However, building owner Samuel Kamau Karanja was convicted and sentenced to seven years in prison.

The judgement has reignited debate over accountability in Kenya’s construction sector, with critics arguing it exposes a broken enforcement system that continues to put millions of Nairobi residents at risk.

A Disaster Foretold

The court painted a picture of a catastrophe that many saw coming but failed to stop.

Evidence from more than 42 witnesses showed the six-storey building was constructed on riparian land  a protected riverbank zone  without approvals from key state agencies.

The illegality dates back to 2011, when Karanja began construction on land parcel LR No. 218/3/173 without a title deed, NEMA approval, Water Resources Authority consent, or county development permission.

A licensed surveyor, Bibiana Rabuku, testified that a 30-metre riparian reserve had been designated in the area as early as 1996, and that the collapsed building stood squarely within that protected zone.

Former Nairobi County Chief Officer for Lands Stephen Gathuita Mwangi confirmed the structure had been erected on public land where no private development was permitted.

 Local authorities also raised alarm.

Assistant Chief Juma Ali Amir told the court he attempted to stop construction in 2013 after noticing the building was being erected on a riverbank.

 “The illegality was something apparent to the naked eye and, being the eyes of the government, I tried to intervene,” he testified.

His efforts failed after being confronted by Karanja and his brother, and construction continued. Tenants later occupied the building.

 

Collapse and Aftermath

By early 2016, tenants had reported cracks in the walls, but repairs were superficial. On the night of April 29, 2016, the building in Huruma’s Ngei II Estate collapsed into the riverbed, burying dozens of residents.

After 12 days of rescue operations, 52 people were confirmed dead and 73 injured — one of Kenya’s worst urban housing disasters.

 The Case Against Karanja

Karanja denied owning the building, claiming it stood on a different parcel of land and that he had no relationship with the tenants.

He also disclosed that his brother and co-accused, Henry Karanja, died by suicide after their arrest.

However, the court found overwhelming circumstantial evidence linking him to the property.

Tenants placed him at the site, while electricity connection applications were made in his name. A Kenya Power contractor confirmed interacting with him during construction.

The magistrate ruled that the chain of evidence was “complete and unambiguous,” convicting Karanja on 31 of the 52 manslaughter counts, alongside charges of illegal riparian development and unlawful occupation of public land.

 Why Officials Walked Free

The four government officials were acquitted on all 53 charges 52 counts of manslaughter and one count of neglect of duty due to gaps in the prosecution’s case.

The court found that key documents failed to specify their areas of responsibility.

Some officials provided evidence showing they were deployed elsewhere, while a NEMA officer testified she was on maternity leave at the time of the collapse.

The assistant county commissioner argued that construction oversight was outside his mandate.

 Despite the acquittals, the magistrate acknowledged the troubling implications of the ruling.

 “The end result is the repugnant outcome that the responsible officers… have clearly escaped accountability,” the court noted.

The judgment further observed that senior officials who oversaw enforcement were neither charged nor called to testify, raising questions about possible institutional shielding.

Karanja was handed a seven-year prison sentence, with additional terms of five and three years for related offences, all to run concurrently.

The court rejected calls for a non-custodial sentence, citing the need for punishment, deterrence, and public condemnation.

  “Deterrence is meant to discourage others who may be inclined to grab public land… thereby endangering innocent lives,” the magistrate said.

 Karanja has 14 days to appeal.