Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedMariakani SRMCC No 307 of 2016 (Appeal)· [2020] KEELRC 689 (KLR)

Kesi Jindwa Karuku v Steel Makers Ltd [2020] KEELRC 689 (KLR)

Environment and Labour Relations Court - actually Employment and Labour Relations Court at Machakos
9 April 2020
LNLINNET NDOLO
1,873 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

#

The Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed an injured worker's appeal because he could not prove his workplace accident actually happened, lacking treatment notes.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first appeal, heard at Machakos by Linnet Ndolo J, against the judgment of Hon. L.K Gatheru RM in Mariakani SRMCC No 307 of 2016, which had dismissed the Appellant's personal injury claim in its entirety. The Appellant alleged that on 18th December 2015, while removing hot metals from a conveyor belt in the Respondent's employment, a hot metal struck his right leg causing a burn, which he blamed on the Respondent's failure to supply safety boots. The Respondent maintained the claim was fictitious. The appeal raised fourteen grounds, grouped into liability and quantum. Applying the settled principles governing first appeals, and authorities including Timsales Ltd v Wilson Libuywa and Peter Migiro v Valley Bakery Limited, the court held that in a disputed factory accident the employee bears the burden of proving the accident on a balance of probabilities, and a late medical report unsupported by the initial treatment notes is of little help. Because the Appellant was accused of filing two fictitious claims with fraudulent treatment notes, and failed to formally produce the treatment notes or call independent testimony despite the Respondent's consistent denial, his own word plus a post-injury medical report could not prove the accident. The court agreed with the Trial Magistrate that liability had not been proved. Quantum, assessed by the trial court at Kshs. 130,000 general and Kshs. 2,000 special damages, was moot, and in any event disclosed no basis for interference under the Kemfro Africa principles. The appeal was dismissed with costs to the Respondent. The judgment was delivered electronically under COVID-19 measures with the parties' consent, waiving Order 21 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Key legal issues

#
01

Proof of liability in a disputed workplace injury claim

Holding

The Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving the accident; the Trial Magistrate's finding was correct

Reasoning

The Appellant was accused of filing two fictitious claims based on fraudulent treatment notes and never formally produced the treatment notes or called an independent witness. Given the Respondent's consistent denial from the defence, witness statement and pre-trial conference, his own word plus a post-injury medical report could not prove that the accident occurred on the date and place alleged.

p. 3
02

Quantum of damages

Holding

Quantum was moot after failure on liability; the Trial Magistrate's award of Kshs. 130,000 general and Kshs. 2,000 special damages would not have been disturbed in any event

Reasoning

Assessment of damages is a judicial discretion; an appellate court interferes only where an irrelevant factor was considered, a relevant one omitted, or the award is so inordinately low or high as to be a wholly erroneous estimate. Nothing in the assessment here met that threshold.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A first appellate court is not bound by the trial court's findings of fact and must re-evaluate the evidence, while being slow to differ from the trial judge who saw and heard the witnesses
  • In a disputed factory accident, the employee must prove the accident on a balance of probabilities; a late medical report unsupported by initial treatment notes does not prove the injury
  • Failure to produce treatment notes may be fatal where authenticity of the claim is disputed; treatment notes are to be considered alongside other evidence
  • The burden of proof in a suit lies on the person who would fail if no evidence were given on either side

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Evidence ActSection 108
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 40
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 18
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1

Cases cited (10)

  • Wambaira & 17 others v Kiogora & 2 others
    [2004] eKLR
  • Selle v Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd
    (1968) E.A. 123
  • Williamson Diamonds Ltd v Brown
    [1970] E.A. 1
  • Peters v Sunday Post Ltd
    [1958] EA 429
  • Simba Commodities Ltd v Citibank N.A
    (2013) eKLR
  • Timsales Ltd v Wilson Libuywa
    [2008] eKLR
  • Peter Migiro v Valley Bakery Limited
    [2015] eKLR
  • Kemfro Africa Limited T/A Meru Express Service Gathogo Kanini v A.M Lubia and Olive Lubia
    [1982-1988] 1 KAR 727
  • Ilango v Manyoka
    [1961] E.A. 705, 709, 713
  • Lukenya Ranching and Farming Cooperative Society Ltd v Kavoloto
    [1970] E.A. 414, 418, 419
On appeal from
Mariakani Senior Resident Magistrate's Court
SRMCC No 307 of 2016
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal from the magistrates' court (statutory appellate jurisdiction); judgment delivered electronically under Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, Article 40, and Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kesi Jindwa Karuku v Steel Makers Ltd [2020] KEELRC 689 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Mariakani SRMCC No 307 of 2016 (Appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/689/eng@2020-04-09

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