Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Appeal No. 58 of 2014· [2015] KECA 981 (KLR)

Purity Wambui Murithii v Highlands Mineral Water Co. Ltd

Court of Appeal
3 February 2015
AVAlnashir VisramMartha Karambu KoomeMartha KoomeJOJ. Otieno-Odek
2,382 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that workers who ignore known workplace hazards can be held half responsible for their own injuries, halving their compensation.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The appellant, a casual labourer employed by the respondent as a packer and cleaner, slipped and fell while cleaning the production section of the respondent's premises on 10th March 2011, sustaining soft tissue injuries to her left elbow, pelvic region, lower back and left knee. She attributed the fall to an oil spill from a machine that had been leaking for eight months; the respondent contended she fell on soapy water she had poured. The trial court found the respondent 100% liable and awarded Kshs. 705,000. The High Court (Wakiaga, J.) on first appeal set aside that decision, apportioned liability 50:50 and reduced general damages to Kshs. 150,000. The appellant's second appeal, restricted to matters of law, challenged the apportionment and the reduction in quantum. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It upheld the trial court's finding, corroborated by the respondent's own witness, that the appellant fell on an oil spill, and found the employer in breach of section 6(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act for failing to address the leak, post no warning, and provide only an apron. However, applying section 13(1)(a), the appellant knew of the spill for three months and was equally to blame, so the 50:50 apportionment was correct. On quantum, applying the Kemfro Africa principles, the High Court was right to interfere with the excessive trial award, and the Court of Appeal saw no reason to disturb Kshs. 150,000 in general damages plus Kshs. 5,000 special damages. The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the High Court erred in apportioning liability at 50:50

Holding

The apportionment was correct: the employer failed to provide a safe working environment by not dealing with a known oil leak and providing only an apron, but the employee knew of the spill for three months and failed to take reasonable care for her own safety.

Reasoning

The court accepted the trial court's finding, corroborated by the respondent's own witness, that the appellant fell on an oil spill from a machine leaking for eight months. The employer breached its statutory duty under section 6(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act by not addressing the leak, placing no warning notice, and providing only an apron. However, under section 13(1)(a) the employee must ensure her own safety; the appellant knew of the spill for three months and was equally to blame. Applying common-sense causation per Stapley v Gypsum Mines, equal apportionment was proper.

p. 4
02

Whether the High Court erred in reducing the trial court's award of general damages from Kshs. 700,000 to Kshs. 150,000

Holding

The High Court was correct: the trial court's award was excessive for soft tissue injuries, and the reduced award stood.

Reasoning

Applying the Kemfro Africa principles, an appellate court may disturb quantum only where the judge took into account an irrelevant factor, left out a relevant one, or the amount is so inordinately high or low as to be a wholly erroneous estimate. Having considered comparable awards for soft tissue injuries, the court found the trial court's award excessive and the High Court's interference justified. On a second appeal, quantum cannot be disturbed unless perverse.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • On a second appeal, the Court of Appeal confines itself to matters of law only.
  • An employer must ensure the safety, health and welfare at work of all persons working in the workplace, but is not liable where the accident is caused by the employee's own negligence.
  • An appellate court will hardly interfere with a trial judge's conclusions on conflicting primary facts and witness credibility.
  • On a second appeal, a finding on quantum of damages cannot be disturbed unless it is perverse or based on an erroneous principle.

Court orders

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

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Occupational Safety and Health ActSection 6(1)
  • Occupational Safety and Health ActSection 13(1)(a)

Cases cited (5)

  • Kemfro Africa Ltd t/a Meru Express Service Gathogo Kanini v A M Lubia & Olive Lubia
    (1982-88) I KAR 727

    Employer's duty to provide safe working conditions; principles for disturbing quantum of damages on appeal

  • Kenya Breweries Ltd v Godfrey Odoyo
    Civil Appeal No. 127 of 2007

    Scope of a second appeal - confined to matters of law

  • Michael Hubert Kloss & Another v David Seroney & 5 Others
    Civil Appeal No. 285 of 2005

    Appellate restraint where conflict of primary facts and witness credibility is crucial

  • Stapley v Gypsum Mines Ltd
    (2) (1953) A.C. 663

    Common-sense approach to causation and apportionment of liability

  • Arrow Car Ltd v Bimomo & 2 Others
    (2004) KLR 101

    Principles for interfering with quantum of damages

On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nyeri
H.C.C.A No. 122 of 2012
Jurisdiction invoked
Second appeal to the Court of Appeal under the applicable appellate framework, restricted to matters of law

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (25)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Purity Wambui Murithii v Highlands Mineral Water Co. Ltd", Case Analysis (2015). Civil Appeal No. 58 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2015/981/eng@2015-02-03

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