Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedAppeal No. 24 of 2017 (formerly Naivasha High Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2014)· [2019] KEELRC 1730 (KLR)

Longonot Horticulture Limited v James Wakaba Maina [2019] KEELRC 1730 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya at Nakuru
29 April 2019
MMM. Mbaru
2,661 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Injured Kenyan workers must claim work-injury compensation through WIBA's official process, not by suing employers in the magistrates' court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a first appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru against a ruling of the Resident Magistrate in Naivasha RMCC No. 68 of 2013, in which the magistrate had declined to strike out the respondent's suit as time barred and had upheld an earlier leave to file suit out of time. The appellant contended that the claim, filed more than three years after an industrial accident of 23rd January 2009, was time barred under section 90 of the Employment Act, while the respondent maintained that leave had been properly granted and that the claim sounded in tort under the Limitation of Actions Act. The court, siting as a first appellate court and applying Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co., re-evaluated the matter and held that although the parties had framed the dispute around limitation under the Employment Act and the Limitation of Actions Act, the cause of action was a work injury governed exclusively by the Work Injury Benefits Act, 2007. Under sections 16 and 23(1) of WIBA, such claims must be reported to the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services, with appeals lying to the ELRC under section 51; court actions against employers are barred, and subordinate courts cannot enlarge WIBA time limitations. The suit, filed after WIBA's commencement on 20th December 2007, was before the wrong forum, and the magistrate had no jurisdiction to extend time or hear it. The court set aside the trial court's ruling and struck out the suit for want of jurisdiction, with no orders on costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Applicable statute for work-injury claims

Holding

The respondent's claim, being grounded on a work injury sustained in the course of employment, falls under WIBA, not the Employment Act or the Limitation of Actions Act

Reasoning

The court held that although parties framed the dispute around limitation under the Employment Act and the Limitation of Actions Act, the cause of action was a work injury, for which WIBA is the specific legislation. The Employment Act defines employee rights and basic conditions of employment, while WIBA provides compensation for work-related injuries and diseases. Specific legislation displaces the general regimes the parties invoked.

p. 3
02

Jurisdiction of the lower court over WIBA claims and enlargement of time

Holding

The magistrate's court had no jurisdiction to hear a claim premised on a work injury under WIBA, nor to enlarge time for such a claim; the leave granted to file suit out of time was granted without jurisdiction

Reasoning

Under sections 16 and 23(1) of WIBA, adjudication of work-injury compensation claims is conferred on the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services, and court proceedings by employees are barred. Aggrieved parties may object to the Director and appeal to the ELRC under section 51. A suit filed directly in the lower court after WIBA commenced was before the wrong forum, so the trial court's extension of time was a nullity.

p. 4
03

Duty of the court to identify and apply the correct law

Holding

Where a question of law is raised, the court is mandated to make the necessary inquiry into the applicable law, even where parties addressed only tort and contract limitation provisions

Reasoning

The court held it was insufficient for the parties to confine themselves to limitation provisions in tort and negligence when the cause of action was a work injury covered by specific legislation. The court seized of a question of law had the mandate to inquire into and apply the correct statutory regime on its own analysis.

p. 3
04

Role of a first appellate court

Holding

As a first appellate court, the court is not bound by the findings of fact of the court below and may re-evaluate the matter

Reasoning

Relying on Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co., the court restated the duty of a first appellate court to re-evaluate the evidence and reach its own conclusions, which framed its review of the trial magistrate's ruling on limitation and jurisdiction.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Work injuries and remedies therefrom are regulated under the Work Injury Benefits Act, 2007, and the Employment Act does not apply where there is specific legislation on work injury
  • Section 16 of WIBA bars court actions by employees against employers for damages in respect of occupational accidents; recourse is a report to the Director and appeal under section 51
  • Time limitations under WIBA claims cannot be enlarged by the lower court
  • Claims pending before the commencement of WIBA enjoy legitimate expectations of being concluded under prior law

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The orders vide ruling dated 2nd November, 2013 are set aside
  2. 2.The suit filed in Naivasha RMCC No. 68 of 2013 is struck out for want of jurisdiction
  3. 3.No orders on costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 90
  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 4(1)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159
  • Work Injury Benefits Act, 2007Preamble; Part IV; Sections 10(4), 16, 23(1), 27, 51, 51(1), 58
  • Industrial Court Act
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011
  • Workmen's Compensation Act (Cap. 236)repealed

Cases cited (5)

  • Joseph Waguru Wainaina v Finlays Horticulture Kenya Limited [formerly Home-grown (K) Ltd]
    CMCC No. 658 of 2012
  • Denis Kisang Ripko v Kenya Commercial Bank
    [2016] eKLR
  • Peter Nyamai v M. J. Clarke
    Civil Case No. 78 of 2012
  • Attorney General v Law Society of Kenya & Central Organisation of Trade Unions
    Civil Appeal No. 133 of 2011 [2017] eKLR
  • Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co.
    [1968] EA 123
On appeal from
Resident Magistrate's Court, Naivasha
Naivasha RMCC No. 68 of 2013
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over appeals from subordinate courts in employment and labour matters (Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011); appeal against ruling in Naivasha RMCC No. 68 of 2013

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (5)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Longonot Horticulture Limited v James Wakaba Maina [2019] KEELRC 1730 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Appeal No. 24 of 2017 (formerly Naivasha High Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1730/eng@2019-04-29

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