P.J. Dave Flowers Limited v Ben Wabomba Walubukha [2018] KEELRC 209 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan flower farm lost its appeal and must pay a worker Kshs. 180,000 plus costs because it failed to provide protective goggles.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Occurrence of the accident and burden of proof
Trial court was entitled to find the accident occurred; the employer failed to produce clinic records and its master roll, and did not call the supervisor of the day, so the evidence supported the Respondent's account
The court re-evaluated the trial evidence as required on a first appeal. DW1 admitted there was no patients register at the employer's clinic, the clinic records were never produced, and the supervisor allegedly present on the day (Mbaru) was not called. The medical report and treatment notes from Manor Medical Centre corroborated the injury from chemicals. The absence from the company clinic register and the resignation declaration did not displace this evidence.
Liability and protective gear
The employer breached its statutory and common law duty by failing to provide goggles/facial protection; the Appellant's own witness admitted protective gear was last issued in April 2014 while the accident was in April 2015, and harvesters were not issued goggles
The court found the magistrate considered relevant facts in concluding there was a duty of care which was breached. DW1 admitted the last issuance of protective gear was April 2014 and the accident occurred April 2015; she also admitted the Respondent, as a harvester, was not entitled to goggles. The failure to issue adequate protective gear for the harvesting work in sprayed greenhouses constituted breach of the duty of care.
Quantum
The award of Kshs. 180,000 was neither inordinately high nor low and was confirmed
The Respondent relied on Butt v Khan for the principle that an appellate court will not disturb an award unless inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate. The court found no reason to upset the lower court's findings and confirmed the award of Kshs. 180,000 plus costs and interest.
Legal principles established
#- On a first appeal the court must re-evaluate the evidence adduced at the lower court before determining the appeal
- Failure to call a witness whose evidence would have been material draws an adverse inference
- An employer owes employees a duty to provide a safe working environment including protective gear
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed
- 2.Findings of the lower court confirmed
- 3.Appellant to pay costs of the appeal and of the lower court
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court at Kajiado
- CMCC No. 1033 of 2016
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(3) of the Constitution (transfer of the appeal from the High Court to this Court)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Atuga v Siafee Chemicals Limited (Cause 510 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 2200 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2200 (KLR)24 Jul 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "P.J. Dave Flowers Limited v Ben Wabomba Walubukha [2018] KEELRC 209 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Appeal from CMCC No. 1033 of 2016, Chief Magistrate's Court at Kajiado (transferred to ELRC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/209/eng@2018-12-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.