Kenya Nut Company (Kiaora Estate) Ltd v Felistah Wanjiru [2015] KEELRC 1125 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Employer's liability for injury by an unidentified dangerous animal
The trial court's finding of liability was correct: the respondent was injured at work by a bite from some dangerous animal, and it did not matter whether it was a snake or gecko.
The trial magistrate had expressed doubt that a gecko could bite but found it beyond doubt that the respondent suffered injuries at work from a bite by some dangerous animal. The appellate court held that this finding was supported by the material on record and disclosed no error, so liability founded on the employer's breach of duty of care stood.
Breach of duty of care: protective gear and spraying of chemicals
The finding that the appellant failed to provide suitable gloves and to spray relevant chemicals was upheld as a breach of the duty of care owed to the employee.
The evidence was that providing suitable gloves and spraying relevant chemicals was a duty whose performance would have discharged the appellant's duty of care towards the safety of the respondent, an employee assigned coffee picking. The appellant's argument that gloves were unnecessary for coffee picking over the years did not persuade the court that the trial finding was erroneous.
Apportionment of liability at 10% to 90%
The trial court's apportionment (10% respondent, 90% appellant) for lack of vigilance was upheld.
The trial court took into account that had the respondent been vigilant enough she would not have been injured, and apportioned liability 10% to 90% for the respondent to the appellant. The appellate court found no error in that exercise of assessing contributory negligence and declined to interfere.
Foreseeability of the accident
The injury was foreseeable: the respondent's evidence that snakes were always in the farm established a continuing danger to coffee pickers.
In cross-examination the respondent stated that snakes are always in that farm. The court held that the presence of dangerous animals was a continuing danger to employees assigned to pick coffee, and that injury from them was nearly obvious and therefore foreseeable, defeating the appellant's contention that the accident was not foreseeable.
Whether the general damages award of Kshs. 95,000.00 was excessive
The award was not excessive and was fair in the circumstances; the appeal on quantum failed.
The learned trial magistrate considered the extent of the injury and the infraction factor in awarding general damages for pain and suffering. The appellant lamented excessiveness but urged no specific material to demonstrate it, so the appellate court found the award fair and left it undisturbed.
Legal principles established
#- An employer's duty of care towards employees may be discharged by providing suitable protective gear and spraying relevant chemicals to keep dangerous animals away from the workplace.
- Injury from a continuing danger known to exist at the workplace (snakes always in the farm) is foreseeable, and an appellate court will not disturb a trial court's finding on foreseeability absent error.
- An appellate court will not interfere with an award of general damages where the appellant points to no specific material showing excessiveness.
Court orders
#- 1.The judgment of the trial court is upheld
- 2.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent
- On appeal from
- Resident Magistrate's Court at Kandara
- Civil Case No. 207 of 2006
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction over an appeal from the Resident Magistrate's Court (memorandum of appeal filed under the applicable civil procedure provisions; no specific article/section quoted in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Nut Company (Kiaora Estate) Ltd v Felistah Wanjiru [2015] KEELRC 1125 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Civil Appeal ( memorandum of appeal filed 5.11.2007, Nyeri). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/1125/eng@2015-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.