Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedAppeal No. 8 of 2015· [2017] KEELRC 1643 (KLR)

Nyayo Tea Zones Development Corporation v Sarah Muhonja Makwaka [2017] KEELRC 1643 (KLR)

Employment & Labour Relations Court
26 January 2017
MOMaureen Onyango
1,803 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

#

A Kenyan court upheld a tea picker's Kshs.80,000 injury award, ruling the employer failed to disprove her fall at work or justify reducing compensation.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a first appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu from the judgment and decree of the Hamisi Senior Resident Magistrate's Court in SRMCC No. 20 of 2010, in which the Respondent, a tea plucker, had sued the Appellant employer for injuries (dislocation of the right ankle joint) sustained when she fell into a grass-covered ditch while plucking tea. The trial Magistrate had found the Appellant liable at 80:20 and awarded the Respondent Kshs.80,000 general damages, Kshs.1,000 special damages, costs and interest on 28th October 2010. The Appellant appealed on liability and quantum, contending there was no proof of a ditch in the plantation or that the injury occurred at work, and suggesting Shs.40,000 as adequate compensation. The court, sitting on first appeal, re-evaluated the evidence. It found the Respondent's testimony that she fell into a ditch covered by grass uncontroverted: the Appellant's sole witness never mentioned the ditch, no evidence showed the Respondent knew of it, and no evidence supported a reporting system or the possibility the injury occurred away from work. On quantum, the court held the Appellant gave no reasons for challenging the award, and that the decision it relied upon, dating from 1992, compared well with the 2009 award once inflation was considered. Applying the principle that appellate courts interfere with damages only where awards are excessively high or low, the court found no merit in the appeal, dismissed it with costs, thereby affirming the judgment below.

Key legal issues

#
01

Liability - proof of injury in the course of employment

Holding

The Respondent proved on a balance of probabilities that she fell into a grass-covered ditch in the Appellant's plantation and sustained injuries; the evidence was not controverted

Reasoning

PW2 testified she fell into a ditch covered by grass making it invisible. This evidence was not challenged in cross-examination, and DW1, the Appellant's only witness, made no mention of the ditch. The Appellant led no evidence to show the ditch did not exist or that the Respondent knew of it, nor evidence of an accident reporting system or health centre. The claim that the injury could have occurred away from work was unsupported by any evidence at trial.

p. 3
02

Quantum - whether the award of general damages was excessive

Holding

The award of Kshs.80,000 (reduced by 20% contribution) was not so high as to warrant appellate interference; the Appellant merely suggested Shs.40,000 without justification

Reasoning

The Appellant did not explain why it disagreed with the trial court's assessment. Its suggested figure of Shs.40,000 was a bare opinion. The authority it relied on involved soft tissue injuries from 1992, seventeen years before the Respondent's 2009 injury; adjusting for inflation, the trial court's award compared well. An appellate court interferes with damages only where the award is excessively high or low, a threshold not met here.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • On a first appeal, the duty of the court is to evaluate the evidence and arrive at its own determination
  • Appellate courts should only interfere with trial court awards of damages where the award is excessively high or excessively low

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs

Authorities

#

Cases cited (4)

  • Loice Nyambeki v Omar Haji Hassan
    Nairobi HCCC No.4150 of 1999
  • Socfinaf Company Limited v Joshua Ngugi Mwaura
    Nairobi HCCA No.742 of 2003
  • Peter Kariuki Njuguna v Alex Kiguru Nganga
    Nairobi HCCC No.27 of 1991
  • Zipporah Wambui Wambura case
On appeal from
Hamisi Senior Resident Magistrate's Court
SRMCC No. 20 of 2010
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over an appeal from Hamisi SRMCC No. 20 of 2010, originally filed as Kakamega High Court Civil Appeal No. 151 of 2010 and transferred to the Employment & Labour Relations Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nyayo Tea Zones Development Corporation v Sarah Muhonja Makwaka [2017] KEELRC 1643 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Appeal No. 8 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2017/1643/eng@2017-01-26

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