Samuel Mula Mbindu v Steel Makers Limited [2020] KEELRC 1385 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan worker lost his injury claim because his testimony about where he was treated contradicted his own medical records.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Burden of proof of injury at work where the claim is alleged to be fictitious
The Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving that he was injured at work on 3rd July 2014; given the Respondent's assertion that the claim was fictitious, the Appellant was obliged to prove his claim rigorously.
The Appellant gave inconsistent testimony about the medical facility where he was first treated - referring to 'Rabai', 'Rabai Health Centre' or 'Rabai Health Demonstration Centre' - none of which matched the facility in the treatment notes relied upon. He also departed from the pre-trial agreement that the treatment notes would be formally produced, without explanation. In the absence of a credible explanation for the discrepancy, the trial Magistrate could not have decided otherwise.
Probative value of treatment notes filed but not produced
The trial Magistrate did not base his decision on failure to produce the treatment notes or to avail corroborative evidence, but on the contradiction as to the medical facility of first treatment; the appeal court endorsed that basis.
Although the trial court considered authorities holding that failure to produce treatment notes is not necessarily fatal to an injury claim, the appellate court found on reading the trial judgment that the dismissal rested on the apparent contradiction regarding where the Appellant was first treated, coupled with the unexplained departure from the pre-trial direction that the maker of the treatment notes be called.
Quantum of damages - appellate interference
The hypothetical award of Kshs. 130,000 for pain and suffering and Kshs. 2,000 special damages was within the trial court's discretion and was upheld.
Damages assessment is discretionary and can only be disturbed where the trial court failed to direct itself properly in law and fact. The appellate court, applying that standard, agreed with the hypothetical award made by the trial court, which would have applied had the Appellant established liability.
Legal principles established
#- On a first appeal, the court re-considers and re-evaluates the evidence and draws its own conclusions, bearing in mind it did not see the witnesses
- An award of damages is an exercise of judicial discretion interferable with only where the trial court failed to direct itself properly in law and fact
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed
- 2.Costs of the appeal to the Respondent
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (trial before Hon. L.K Gatheru, RM; judgment delivered by Hon. D.M Ndungi, SRM)
- Not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the magistrates' court (statutory appeal from the trial court's dismissal of a personal injury claim; no specific provision cited)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Samuel Otieno Musumba v Industrial & another [2022] KEELRC 215 (KLR)[2022] KEELRC 215 (KLR)21 Mar 2022
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Samuel Mula Mbindu v Steel Makers Limited [2020] KEELRC 1385 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Civil Appeal No 13 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1385/eng@2020-03-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.