Bigot Flowers Limited v Peter Jakoyo Anyango [2019] KEELRC 1743 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court overturned a damages award against a flower farm because the injured worker couldn't prove he was still an employee when the accident happened.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Employment on the date of the accident
The respondent failed to prove he was an employee of the appellant on 6th January, 2012; the evidence, including muster rolls kept under section 9 of the Work Injury Benefits Act, 2007 and unchallenged testimony of the human resource manager, showed he had resigned in 2011 and was never re-employed
The primary evidence of employment is found in the employer's work records. The muster roll for 6th January, 2012, kept in accordance with section 9 of the Work Injury Benefits Act, 2007, did not show the respondent at work. The evidence of Charity Opon and Mureithi Kahero that the respondent resigned and left employment on 17th October, 2011 and was never re-employed was not challenged in any material way.
Trial court's findings unsupported by pleadings and evidence
The trial court's finding that the respondent was a casual employee who fell while working on a greenhouse was not supported by the pleadings or evidence; the plaint did not plead a fall from a greenhouse
The plaint merely alleged an industrial accident without particulars. The respondent's testimony gave no material particulars of the circumstances leading to the injury. Findings of fact must rest on material evidence; the trial court's findings on employment and the fall were therefore devoid of any material before the court.
Burden of proving negligence and causal link
Without a linkage of employment, the claim failed; the burden on the respondent as the person alleging employment and injury at work was not discharged on a balance of probabilities, and negligence could not be inferred without a causal link
The appellant relied on authority that liability cannot be apportioned without fault and that negligence cannot be inferred without a causal link. There was no evidence enabling a fair conclusion that the accident was caused by the employer's negligence or breach of duty of care, as in Statpack Industries v James Mbithi Munyao.
Legal principles established
#- A first appellate court must reconsider the evidence, evaluate it itself and draw its own conclusions, while making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses
- Whoever asserts a legal right or liability dependent on facts must prove those facts (burden of proof under section 107(1) of the Evidence Act)
- A master is not responsible for a wrongful act by his servant unless it is done in the course of employment
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is allowed with costs to the appellant
- 2.The judgment and decree of the lower court are set aside
- On appeal from
- Naivasha Chief Magistrate's Court
- Naivasha CMCC No. 502 of 2013
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court (appellate jurisdiction over the magistrate's court decision)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bigot Flowers Limited v Peter Jakoyo Anyango [2019] KEELRC 1743 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). ELRC Appeal No. 60 of 2017 (Formerly Naivasha High Court Appeal No. 66 of 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1743/eng@2019-04-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.