Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedAppeal No. 31 of 2017 (formerly High Court Appeal No. 161 of 2012)· [2018] KEELRC 31 (KLR)

Carzan Flowers (K) Ltd v Janet Chebet Maritim [2018] KEELRC 31 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya at Nakuru
17 September 2018
MMM. Mbaru
1,633 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

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru (transferred from the High Court) against the judgment of Hon. Mwaniki, Senior Resident Magistrate, in CMCC No. 369 of 2007, a workplace injury claim. The respondent, an employee of the appellant, claimed she fell into a ditch while picking flowers on 13th March 2006, sustaining a deep cut to the face, and the trial magistrate found the appellant liable on a balance of probabilities and awarded damages. The appellant appealed on grounds including failure of proof, misdirection on liability, non-production of the initial treatment card, and excessive damages. The court, as a first appellate court, applied the principles in Kamau v Muigai and Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co requiring re-evaluation of the evidence. It identified material contradictions: the respondent pleaded an accident on 13th March 2006, yet the medical report by Dr Omuyoma and his testimony recorded the injury history as 12th March 2006; the appellant's Administrative Manager testified no accident was reported on the material day, the respondent's job card showed her at work uninjured, and she was not treated at any facility contracted to the appellant. The court held the trial court erred in relying on contradictory evidence, which negated the requirement of proof on a balance of probabilities. The appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Standard of proof on a balance of probabilities

Holding

The trial court's judgment and decree were set aside because it relied on evidence where material facts were in contradiction, negating the requirement that a party prove its case on a balance of probabilities

Reasoning

The respondent claimed injury on 13th March 2006 while the medical report and the doctor's evidence recorded the injury as occurring on 12th March 2006. The appellant's witness testified no accident was reported on the material day and the respondent was not treated at the facilities contracted by the appellant. These material variances meant the trial court's finding of liability rested on contradictory evidence.

p. 3
02

Duty of a first appellate court

Holding

The court applied the established principle that a first appellate court must re-evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions while making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses

Reasoning

Citing Kamau v Muigai and Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co, the court restated the duty to reconsider and evaluate the evidence afresh, not being bound by the trial court's findings of fact where those findings failed to account for material circumstances or probabilities.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A first appellate court must re-evaluate the evidence and reach its own conclusions while making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is allowed
  2. 2.The judgment and decree of the trial court are set aside
  3. 3.Each party shall bear own costs

Authorities

#

Cases cited (2)

  • Kamau versus Muigai
    [2006] 1 KLR
  • Selle & another versus Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd & others
    (1968) EA 123
On appeal from
Senior Resident Magistrate's Court, Nakuru
CMCC No. 369 of 2007
Jurisdiction invoked
Appeal transferred from the High Court, Nakuru to the Employment and Labour Relations Court as arising from an employer and employee relationship

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Carzan Flowers (K) Ltd v Janet Chebet Maritim [2018] KEELRC 31 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Appeal No. 31 of 2017 (formerly High Court Appeal No. 161 of 2012). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/31/eng@2018-09-17

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