Learners ‘hushed’ in pit toilet death
The trial in the death of six-year-old Michael Komape who died after falling and drowning in a pit toilet at his school in 2014, started in the Polokwane High Court on Monday.
POLOKWANE – The trial in the death of six-year-old Michael Komape, who died after falling and drowning in a pit toilet at his school in 2014, started in the Polokwane High Court on Monday.
Three weeks have been set aside for the trial in which the NGO Section 27 took the minister of Basic Education, the principal of Mahlodumela Primary School, the school’s governing body and the Limpopo MEC for Education to court following the death of Komape on 20 January 2014.
Read more: ANCYL: Boy’s pit toilet death used for political scoring
Dr Kwena Selaki Matlala, who examined Komape’s body two days after his death, found the six-year-old’s body had severe oedema in his brain and his lungs were enlarged.
His parents, James and Rosina Komape, stated in the court papers they have brought this action in the interest of several constitutional rights that have been infringed in terms of their child and other minor children who attend schools in Limpopo, but who are unable to institute these proceedings for themselves, as well as in the public interest.
Read more: Family and friends pay their respects to Komape family
According to Section 27, the school instructed other learners at the school not to tell anyone about the circumstances surrounding Komape’s death or that he was in the pit.
This included with-holding from his mother the fact that he was in the pit from the time she arrived at the school looking for him, and the time going to a daycare facility in the area, supposedly in search of him when they knew or ought to have known, that he was in distress in the pit.
Komape’s family is seeking damages as the child’s death was a result of wrongful, unlawful and negligent conduct, as well as unconstitutional conduct. The Komapes’ two other children, Mokibelo and Khomotso, are also plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
They are demanding a payment of R940 000 for emotional trauma and shock, as well as a further R2 million for the grief they suffered.
Section 27 Spokesperson, Nomatter Ndebele, said the outcome of the court case could influence the sanitation policy across the country and that the family is still waiting for an apology from the government.
The defendants in court papers denied the toilet was unsafe, unsecured or unfit for human use, and said the death could be described as an accident.
Advocate Vincent Maleka, who represents Section 27 on behalf of the parents in court, said they will present evidence to show there were all manner of requests and protest by civil society to ask the department to provide infrastructural plans.
On 29 November 2016 the state failed to meet its first norms and standards deadline. It was required, by that date, to ensure no schools were left without water, electricity or sanitation and that no school was constructed of inappropriate material.
Maleka also stated the amount offered by the defendants was extraordinarily insulting and was rightly declined with the contempt it deserves.
The subsequent offer from the defendants was a concession on the delictual claim, but was a recycled version of the first offer. He explained what the claims constitute and said it was compensatory in nature as well as corrective in the consideration of constitutional damages.
He claimed the mother, Rosina, was unable to work as a result of her son’s death.
Psychologists have met with the family and agreed on a number of sessions needed in the future.
He said during preparation for the case, the plaintiff requested documentation, crucial to information on the toilet’s structure, but to no avail.
Maleka said one of the crucial evidentiary aspects to be presented is the immediate removal of the toilet. He said the state has not evidenced a lack of financial resources as a reason for a lack of infrastructure and added this was a case of a department that has sufficient resources.
“Our submissions to the Polokwane High Court demonstrate the knowledge the state had, or ought to have had, of the crisis of inadequate and unsafe school conditions in South Africa.”
