Zakaria Sawala Choka v Tile & Carpet Centre [2019] KEELRC 1125 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the injury sustained during an employer-organised recreational football match amounts to a work injury attracting employer liability
No. The Appellant was injured outside the scope of his ordinary duty in a recreational activity he freely consented to participate in; the injury was a recreational activity injury, not a work injury.
The Appellant's own evidence established the injury occurred on a Sunday, his rest day, at KPA Grounds during end-of-year celebrations. He was employed as a Loader and was not contracted or paid to play football. Participation was voluntary and he could have stayed home without employment consequences. Employer liability for work injury requires fault, and no fault arises in voluntary recreational activity outside the scope of duty.
Whether the defence of volenti non fit injuria was properly applied by the Trial Court
Yes. The Trial Court was correct; the Appellant chose freely to play recreational football and voluntarily assumed the attendant risk.
The Appellant was a loader, not a professional footballer, and the Respondent deals in tiles and carpets, not professional football. The Respondent aptly relied on Homegrown [K] Limited v. Jackline Bonareri Otieno where, on similar facts, the High Court held the employee played for her own pleasure and the employer owed no duty of care. Voluntary participation in the game meant liability could not attach.
Whether the Appellant was under the Respondent's compulsion to attend and participate in the event
No. The incident happened on a Sunday, outside the Appellant's ordinary schedule and place of work, and he was not compelled to attend or participate.
The Appellant worked six days a week at Ganjoni and Sunday was his rest day. He could have stayed home without risking a charge of absence from work without leave or lawful cause. Absent compulsion, the employment relationship did not place him at the location or in the activity, and the causal link required for employer liability was absent.
Legal principles established
#- There can be no liability on the part of an Employer for work injury occasioned to an Employee without fault
- Employers are not liable for injuries sustained by employees in voluntary recreational activities organised by the employer, outside working hours and freely consented to
Court orders
#- 1.The Appeal is rejected
- 2.No order on the costs
- On appeal from
- Trial Court (magistrates' court, not named in the judgment)
- Not stated in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over the Trial Court's decision (parties agreed on 4th July 2018 to have the Appeal determined on the strength of the record)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Zakaria Sawala Choka v Tile & Carpet Centre [2019] KEELRC 1125 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1125/eng@2019-07-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.