Rapid Kate Services Ltd v Hillary Ingwe M [2016] KEELRC 397 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employer lost its appeal and must pay an injured casual worker, after failing to prove he wasn't its employee or that the damages award was wrong.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the respondent was employed by the appellant and injured in the course of employment on 2.6.2004
The trial court's finding that the respondent was employed and injured was supported by the evidence and not disturbed
The respondent gave a detailed testimony of the workplace, the loading of fertilizer using wooden pallets, and produced medical evidence through Pw2. The list of casual labourers did not bear his name, but DW1 could not produce the original list, was not its maker, and could not remember all workers present; the list may have been prepared after the respondent was taken to hospital. The finding of employment was therefore sound.
Whether the apportionment of liability at 70:30% was erroneous
The apportionment was upheld; the appellant failed to provide safe working conditions and failed to warn or supervise a new worker
The appellant provided a shaking and slippery ladder made of pallets, failed to warn and supervise the respondent who was new to the dangerous work, and exposed him to the risk of falling. The respondent also bore some blame for failing to exercise due care, justifying the 70:30 apportionment by the trial court.
Whether the award of kshs.120,000 general damages was so high as to warrant interference
The award was not disturbed; the appellant did not meet the threshold for interference with quantum
The court applied the Kemfro Africa principles as restated in Peter M. Kariuki v Attorney General: quantum may only be disturbed where an irrelevant factor was considered, a relevant one omitted, or the amount is inordinately low or high. The appellant demonstrated none of these and cited no relevant precedents.
Legal principles established
#- An appellate court will not disturb a trial court's quantum of damages unless the trial judge took into account an irrelevant factor, left out a relevant one, or the amount is so inordinately low or high as to be a wholly erroneous estimate
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent
- 2.The trial court's apportionment of liability at 70:30% in favour of the plaintiff is upheld
- 3.The award of general damages of kshs.120,000 is upheld
- On appeal from
- Senior Resident Magistrate's Court, Mombasa
- Mombasa RMCC No. 4851 of 2004
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appeal transferred to the Employment and Labour Relations Court as a labour dispute (transferred on 19.1.2016)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rapid Kate Services Ltd v Hillary Ingwe M [2016] KEELRC 397 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Mombasa RMCC No. 4851 of 2004 (appeal transferred to ELRC on 19.1.2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/397/eng@2016-11-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.