Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh on Wednesday raised questions about claims that settlement agreements signed by relatives of victims of the 2023 Mahdia Secondary School dormitory fire were executed under duress, as the compensation case returned to court.
The matter centres on agreements signed in July 2023 between the state and families of 13 girls of the 20 children who died in the dormitory blaze. Under those agreements, compensation was paid and accepted. However, the applicants have since moved to challenge the validity of those settlements.
Appearing for the applicants, attorney Darren Wade argued that the agreements are invalid on the basis that they were signed under duress, with families allegedly pressured into accepting the terms without the benefit of independent legal advice.
Wade submitted that the circumstances surrounding the signing, particularly involving Indigenous families from hinterland communities, were coercive. He contended that the applicants were effectively compelled to sign the agreements, raising constitutional concerns beyond a standard contractual dispute.
Representing the State, King’s Counsel Darshan Ramdhani rejected the claim, arguing that duress had not been properly pleaded and, in any event, had not been established in law. He maintained that duress requires clear evidence of illegitimate pressure, which he said was absent from the applicants’ case.
Ramdhani further submitted that the agreements remain legally binding, emphasising that compensation was not only offered but also accepted by the claimants. He argued that once a settlement is executed and funds are received, it cannot be set aside simply because parties later become dissatisfied with the outcome.
During the hearing, Justice Singh repeatedly questioned Wade on the basis of the challenge, particularly in light of the timeline. He noted that the agreements were signed and monies disbursed in July 2023, yet the legal challenge was brought more than a year later.
The Judge indicated that this delay, coupled with the acceptance of compensation, raised doubts about the credibility of the claim that the agreements were signed under duress.
Justice Singh also questioned the inconsistencies in Wade’s submissions, especially regarding the sequence of events surrounding the signing of the agreements and the payment of compensation. He noted that aspects of the oral arguments did not align with the written submissions before the court.
At one point, the Chief Justice intervened, halting the proceedings and stating, “I don’t tolerate nonsense in my court,” as he expressed dissatisfaction with the clarity of the presentation.
The exchanges in court were to determine whether the circumstances described by the applicants meet the threshold for duress in law.
Ramdhani argued that for duress to be established, there must be proof of illegitimate pressure that effectively removes a party’s free will. He maintained that no such evidence had been properly advanced and that the applicants’ pleadings were insufficient.
Wade, however, insisted that the context in which the agreements were signed, including the vulnerability of the families and language barriers, must be taken into account. He argued that the matter should not be treated as a purely commercial contract dispute but as one engaging constitutional protection.
Wade asked to make further, brief submissions during the hearing, but the Chief Justice ruled that the application before the court was too vague and declined to allow it.
The matter was subsequently adjourned, with Justice Singh indicating that he will deliver his ruling on June 18. This is the second date that was given for ruling in this case. The matter, originally scheduled for a ruling in September 2025, was refixed for November 19, 2025.
The case is being heard alongside a related matter, Delphia Toney et al vs the Attorney General. Both actions involve 10 primary applicants represented by Wade, while the State is represented by King’s Counsel Darshan Ramdhani and I Bacchus.
The legal proceedings commenced on March 23, 2025, and arise from the deaths of 20 girls in the Mahdia Secondary School dormitory fire. A teenager has since been charged for the fire and the deaths of the 19 students and a five-year-old boy. She was committed to stand trial in the High Court in February 2025.
