Carzan Flowers Limited v Zachary Mwangi Njogu [2020] KEELRC 1056 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employer failed to overturn a workplace injury ruling after its own accident records appeared altered, confirming workers can win injury claims even without occurrence book entries.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Liability of the employer for workplace injury and apportionment at 70:30
The trial court properly found the respondent was injured at work and correctly apportioned liability; the appeal on liability lacks merit
The respondent established employment and injury in the course of work, corroborated by the supervisor, the nurse and medical notes from Rongai Health Centre. The appellant's witness was not the direct supervisor and those who accompanied the respondent were not called. The accident record had been altered, undermining its credibility. Liability apportionment at 70% to 30% was a proper exercise of discretion.
Reliance on section 13(1)(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act
The statute relied on by the appellant was not in operation at the time of the accident or filing of suit, and was immaterial
The appellant anchored its submissions on section 13(1)(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, but that Act came into force after the accident of 23rd March 2005 and after filing of the suit in 2006. The court therefore disregarded the provision as immaterial to the determination of liability.
Quantum of general damages
The injuries were superficial and had healed well; the award of Kshs 50,000 is confirmed as not excessive within the range of comparable awards
The court found the injuries minor and superficial, with Dr Omuyoma finding only scars a year later. Comparing awards for similar leg injuries around 2004-2005 ranging from Kshs 40,000 to 50,000, the trial court applied the upper limit; Kshs 50,000 was neither too high nor excessive and the award was accordingly reviewed to that figure.
Legal principles established
#- On a first appeal, the court may re-evaluate the evidence but will not lightly differ with the trial court on findings of fact because the trial court had the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses
- Once a plaintiff establishes injury arising in the course of employment on a balance of probabilities, the employer bears the burden of proving there was no accident or negligence on its part
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal on liability is dismissed
- 2.The award of general damages is reviewed and confirmed at Kshs 50,000
- 3.Each party shall bear own costs of the appeal
- 4.Judgment delivered electronically via e-mail in line with COVID-19 directions issued by the Chief Justice on 15th March 2020
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court at Nakuru
- Nakuru CMCC No. 55 of 2007
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over an appeal from the magistrates' court in a labour-related personal injury suit (ELRC at Nakuru, Appeal No. 11 of 2018)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Carzan Flowers Limited v Zachary Mwangi Njogu [2020] KEELRC 1056 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Appeal No. 11 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1056/eng@2020-04-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.