Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Appeal No. 79 of 2005· [2014] KECA 299 (KLR)

Japheth Natse Ifedha v Collindale Security Company Limited [2014] KECA 299 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
24 October 2014
1,217 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed employers only need reasonable care, not guaranteed safety, so an employee injured at work still must prove actual negligence.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a second appeal to the Court of Appeal at Nairobi by a security guard against the High Court's dismissal of his first appeal. The appellant sued his former employer, Collindale Security Company Limited, for general, special and exemplary damages for injuries sustained in the course of his employment. Both the Chief Magistrate's Court and the High Court (Visram, J) found that negligence had not been established. The appellant's grounds included that the Judge failed to address negligence on the pleadings and evidence, made findings on hearsay, failed to assess quantum, and wrongly relied on volenti non fit injuria. The Court of Appeal, comprising Gatembu, M'inoti and J. Mohammed, JJ.A, in a single judgment of the court, held that under Section 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act its jurisdiction was confined to matters of law, following Kenya Breweries Ltd v Godfrey Odoyo. On the merits, applying Halsbury's Laws and Mwanyule v Said, the Court held that an employer owes no absolute duty and is not an insurer of an employee's safety; only reasonable care against foreseeable risks is required. The appellant admitted the respondent supplied walkie-talkies and an alarm, and produced no evidence that he had requested additional guards and been refused; as supervisor, requesting more guards was his own responsibility. The Court agreed that the claim in negligence was not established on a balance of probability and that the claim for exemplary damages for inhuman conduct was not proved. The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent. The judgment binds subordinate courts and the High Court on the scope of second appeals and the standard of an employer's duty of care.

Key legal issues

#
01

Scope of the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction on a second appeal

Holding

The Court is confined to matters of law and must resist revisiting findings of fact.

Reasoning

Section 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act restricts second appeals to questions of law. The Court adopted the formulation in Kenya Breweries Ltd v Godfrey Odoyo that it must resist the temptation of delving into matters of fact, unless the courts below considered matters they should not have, omitted matters they should have considered, or the decision is perverse. The appellant's complaints were essentially factual attacks on the appraisal of evidence.

p. 2
02

Standard of an employer's duty of care to an employee

Holding

The duty is reasonable care against foreseeable risks, not an absolute or insurer's duty; providing walkie-talkies and an alarm discharged it.

Reasoning

Relying on Halsbury's Laws of England and Mwanyule v Said, the Court held the employer does not warrant the employee's safety nor insure against injury; due care and skill suffice. The appellant admitted being given the necessary equipment, and as supervisor he bore responsibility for requesting more guards but never did, so no breach of duty was established on a balance of probability.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • On a second appeal the Court of Appeal is restricted to matters of law only and will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless the lower courts considered matters they should not have, failed to consider matters they should have, or the decision is perverse.
  • An employer owes no absolute duty of safety to an employee; the duty is one of reasonable care against reasonably foreseeable risks, and provision of reasonable precautions discharges it.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the appeal to the respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 21, Laws of KenyaSection 72(1)

Cases cited (2)

  • Kenya Breweries Ltd v Godfrey Odoyo
    Civil Appeal No. 127 of 2007
  • Mwanyule v Said t/a Jomvu Total Service Station
    [2004] 1 KLR 47
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
HCCA No. 99 of 2004
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal to the Court of Appeal from the High Court in a second appeal, restricted by Section 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 21) to matters of law only

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Japheth Natse Ifedha v Collindale Security Company Limited [2014] KECA 299 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2005. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2014/299/eng@2014-10-24

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.