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 AppealPartially AllowedCivil Appeal No. 24 of 2008· [2016] KECA 380 (KLR)

East African Portland Cement Company Ltd v Tilikia Keloi [2016] KECA 380 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
15 July 2016
1,865 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal cut an injured worker's compensation by 10% for operating a faulty machine he knew was dangerous, and struck out unproven expenses.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Court of Appeal at Nairobi (Githinji, Visram and Sichale, JJ.A) allowed this first appeal in part against the judgment of Aluoch, J delivered on 26th October 2000, which had awarded the respondent, a conveyor attendant injured at work when a crane snapped and ran wild, general damages of Kshs. 350,000.00 and special damages of Kshs. 3,431.00. The appellant contended that the respondent was contributorily negligent in operating a machine he knew was faulty, that quantum was excessive and that special damages were unproven. Reaffirming the duty of a first appellate court to re-evaluate evidence, the Court applied Purity Wambui Muriithi v Highlands Mineral Water Co. Ltd and sections 6(1) and 13(1)(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act to hold that an employee owes a corresponding duty to ensure his own safety; finding the respondent knew the machine was faulty and was not forced to operate it, the Court apportioned 10% contributory negligence. On quantum, applying Butt v Khan, Kemfro Africa and Gicheru v Morton, the Court declined to disturb the general damages award as not excessive, but reduced it by 10% to Kshs. 315,000.00, with interest running from 26th October 2000. It set aside the special damages award, holding that special damages must be specifically proven and that an uncontroverted claim does not discharge the claimant's burden of proof. The appeal partially succeeded; each party was ordered to bear its own costs. The judgment binds lower courts on first-appeal duties, employee safety duties, and specific proof of special damages.

Key legal issues

#
01

Contributory negligence of an employee operating a known faulty machine

Holding

The respondent contributed to the accident and liability was apportioned at 10% against him

Reasoning

The employer owes a statutory duty under section 6(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act to ensure employee safety, but the employee owes a corresponding duty under section 13(1)(a) to ensure his own safety. The respondent knew the crane was faulty and operated it without being forced to do so; by parity of reasoning he failed in that duty and his liability was fixed at 10%.

p. 3
02

Interference with quantum of general damages on appeal

Holding

The award of Kshs. 350,000.00 was not excessive and was left undisturbed

Reasoning

Applying Butt v Khan, Kemfro Africa and Gicheru v Morton, an appellate court interferes with quantum only where the judge acted on a wrong principle or the amount is so inordinately high or low as to be an entirely erroneous estimate. None of those conditions was shown here.

p. 4
03

Proof of special damages

Holding

The award of special damages of Kshs. 3,431.00 was set aside because they were not specifically proven

Reasoning

The burden lay on the respondent to prove his claim on a balance of probability. Special damages must be specifically proven, and the absence of evidence rebutting the claim does not relieve the claimant of that burden. No proof was tendered, so the trial judge erred in awarding them.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A first appellate court must re-consider, re-evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions while appreciating it did not see or hear the witnesses
  • An employee is under a corresponding statutory duty to take reasonable precautions for his own safety at the workplace, and contributory negligence reduces the employer's liability accordingly
  • Special damages must be specifically proven; they are not proved merely because they are uncontroverted

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Apportionment of liability: respondent 10% contributory negligence
  2. 2.General damages reduced by 10% from Kshs. 350,000.00 to Kshs. 315,000.00
  3. 3.Interest on the reduced general damages to run from the date of the High Court judgment, 26th October 2000
  4. 4.Award of special damages of Kshs. 3,431.00 set aside
  5. 5.Each party to bear its/his own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Occupational Safety & Accident Act / Occupational Safety and Health ActSection 6(1)
  • Occupational Safety and Health ActSection 13(1)(a)

Cases cited (9)

  • Olive Muthoni Karuri v Njoro Cnning Factory (K) Ltd
    [2011] eKLR
  • Purity Wambui Muriithi vs Highlands Mineral Water Co. Ltd
    [2015] eKLR
  • Sumaria & Another v Allied Industries Ltd
    (2007) KLR 1
  • Rook v Rairrie
    [1941] 1 ALL E.R 297
  • Butt v Khan
    [1981] KLR 349
  • Kemfro Africa Limited t/a Meru Express Service Gathogo Kanini v. A.m. Lubia and Olive Lubia
    (1982-88) 1 KAR 727
  • Ilango v Manyoka
    [1961] E.A. 705
  • Lukenya Ranching And Farming Co-operatives Society Ltd v Kavoloto
    [1970] E.A. 414
  • Gicheru V Morton and Another
    (2005) 2 KLR 333
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
Civil Case No. 4650 of 1987
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal to the Court of Appeal under the Court of Appeal's appellate jurisdiction (statutory first appeal; no specific constitutional provision stated in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (5)

#

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, "East African Portland Cement Company Ltd v Tilikia Keloi [2016] KECA 380 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2008. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2016/380/eng@2016-07-15

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