B O E & another (Suing as Administrator and Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late V E E) v Wells Fargo Company Limited [2016] KEELRC 796 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court held an employer 100% liable for a security guard's death because it failed to provide basic protective gear like bullet proof vests.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Employer's liability for the death of an employee killed in the course of inherently dangerous duties
The respondent was held 100% liable for failing to provide a safe working environment and minimum reasonable protective measures
The deceased, a cash-in-transit escort, was caged in a locked, non-armoured square carrier with no outward visibility and minimal movement. The respondent provided armed escorts, helmets and training, but no bullet proof vests or armoured vehicles. The duty of care rested solely on the employer; the risk of armed attack was foreseeable, and caging an unprotected guard in a cabin holding cash was not a safe environment. Following Makala Mumende, the failure to provide a bullet proof vest amounted to negligent omission.
Quantum of damages under the Fatal Accidents Act
A multiplier of 20 years and a multiplicand of 2/3 of the gross salary of Kshs.7,504 was adopted, yielding Kshs.1,200,640 in loss of dependency
The court applied the established principles: the multiplicand is derived from the deceased's earnings, multiplied by a reasonable multiplier representing working life expectancy, and discounted for lump-sum receipt. The deceased was 33 with 27 years to retirement, leaving a widow, five children and dependent parents as sole breadwinner. The court found 20 years reasonable, with a two-thirds dependency ratio.
Pain and suffering damages
Kshs.300,000 awarded for the pain and suffering endured by the deceased before death
The deceased was shot on 4th January 2007 and succumbed on 6th January 2007, suffering pain and agony for about three days. The widow gave vivid, untraversed testimony that the deceased was neglected under poor hospital conditions during that period, justifying the award.
Legal principles established
#- An employer owes a common law duty of care to provide minimum reasonable measures of protection to employees engaged in inherently dangerous work; acceptance of a dangerous job is no excuse for the employer to neglect protective measures
- In the Kenyan context, a bullet proof vest in addition to a helmet comprises the minimum reasonable measure of protection for a guard placed in a dangerous cash-in-transit environment
Court orders
#- 1.Loss of dependency awarded at Kshs.1,200,640
- 2.Loss of life awarded at Kshs.150,000
- 3.Pain and suffering awarded at Kshs.300,000
- 4.Total award of Kshs.1,650,640 against the respondent
- 5.Interest at court rates from date of judgment till payment in full
- 6.Costs of the suit to the claimants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Claims brought under the Law Reform Act (Cap 26), the Fatal Accidents Act (Cap 32) and the Employment Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "B O E & another (Suing as Administrator and Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late V E E) v Wells Fargo Company Limited [2016] KEELRC 796 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/796/eng@2016-07-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.