High Court to rule 18th June on compensation case by parents of Mahdia dorm. fire victims

May 07, 2026 News

---

(Kaieteur News) – The High Court has set June 18, 2026 to hand down its ruling on whether the lawsuit challenging the compensation received by the parents of 11 children from Micobie and Chenapou, who died in the Madhia dormitory fire, has validity.

The guardians are seeking ordinary damages of over $200 million for each of the deceased children, in addition to aggravated and exemplary damages, which total more than $400 million per child. The damages sought are intended to compensate for the emotional distress caused to the families, as well as to deter future acts of negligence by the State.

The lawsuit, filed in the High Court by their attorney, Darren Wade, argued that the State failed to fulfill its legal and moral duty to ensure the safety and well-being of the girls under its care.  The legal action outlines several constitutional breaches, including the confinement of the girls in a locked and grilled dormitory that hindered their ability to escape during the fire, ultimately leading to their deaths.

Wade’s application asserts that the State of Guyana’s failure to implement necessary fire safety measures, such as proper ventilation, fire extinguishers, sprinklers, and escape routes, amounted to a severe breach of its duty of care. The case also claims that the locked doors and windows, which were grilled and padlocked from the inside, constituted a violation of the girls’ fundamental human rights, including their right to freedom of movement and their right to life.

According to the claim, the State’s negligence in failing to address fire safety concerns, despite prior warnings from the fire service, directly contributed to the loss of life. The claim further emphasises that the tragic incident was entirely preventable had the State taken appropriate steps to ensure proper safety protocols were in place.

The lawsuit also brings into question the actions of the government following the fire, particularly the meeting held on July 3, 2023, with Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC.

During this meeting, family members of the deceased were reportedly pressured to sign an agreement without independent legal advice. The guardians alleged that the agreement proposed a sum of $5 million per child, a figure they argue is grossly inadequate for the immense loss and suffering. Furthermore, the lawsuit asserts that the State’s actions amount to a violation of the constitutional rights of the deceased children under Articles 138, 139, 141, 148, and 149D of the Constitution of Guyana. The guardians argue that the confinement of the girls in such conditions not only breached their right to life but also amounted to cruel and degrading punishment, in direct violation of their human dignity.

On Wednesday, oral submissions on whether the lawsuit challenging the validity of 2023 land resource agreements should be struck out or be allowed to proceed to a full trial were submitted before Chief Justice (ag) Navindra Singh. At the heart of the dispute is a fundamental disagreement between attorneys Wade, representing the Indigenous applicants, and King’s Counsel Dharshan Ramdhani, appearing for the State, over the definition of “legitimate pressure” in constitutional and commercial law.

The State’s application to strike out the case rests on the argument that the applicants have failed to establish a viable legal challenge. Ramdhani contended that the law of contract acknowledges that parties often bargain under stress. Citing the 1975 Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy case, the defense argued that the absence of independent legal counsel does not automatically void an agreement. Ramdhani reminded that funds were disbursed in September 2023 and the applicants waited until April 2025 to file proceedings. He argued that this delay and the acceptance of benefits effectively ratified the contract.

The defense maintained that because the pressure applied to the parents to sign the contract with urgency was “legitimate commercial pressure,” there is no need for a substantive defense, as the case lacks a constitutional basis to move forward.

However, Wade who is representing the Indigenous communities argued that the State cannot treat agreements with Indigenous peoples as mere “commercial transactions for children.” He emphasized the unique vulnerabilities faced by those living in the interior where resources and legal access are limited.

Wade submitted that the agreements infringe upon the protection of religion and the “traditional guarantees” afforded to Indigenous people under the Constitution. He referenced claims that individuals felt forced to sign documents they had initially rejected, calling the process an affront to democratic operations.

The attorney reminded the court that the Constitution provides a “high tolerance” and special protections for Indigenous rights that override standard commercial law principles. It is important to note that the aforementioned submissions were not initially presented to the court.

This was highlighted by Justice Singh, who while Wade was pleading his case, said “Where in your pleading is it stated?”

Wade then suggested that the parents did not have enough time to process their grief as the meeting with the Attorney General happened “a few days after” the fire. However, Justice Singh, looking at the facts, disagreed with him.

“The children lost their lives on May 22^nd [and] in the morning on July 3rd a meeting was held,” Justice Singh stated.

Wade told the court that the case is important and has the possibility of being litigated all the way to the Caribbean Court of Justice. He argued that the formation of international law and human rights theory must be applied to how the “deceased” rights of these communities are treated.

---

• dormitory fire, fire victims, High Court, Mahdia

---