Peter Maina Gachigi v Chinga Tea Factory Ltd [2020] KEELRC 1648 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded a tea factory worker Kshs 407,000 for a 1993 workplace hand injury, but refused his Kshs 1.8 million lost-income claim because he produced no supporting evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Liability for workplace injuries
Liability was not contested; the Respondent called no witness and made no submissions on liability, so the court held liability not in issue
The Respondent did not dispute the injury of 30 June 1993, the special damages of Kshs 7,000/-, or the compensation paid under the Workmen Compensation Act. Despite denying liability in its Response, it presented no witness before the High Court and filed no witness statement before this Court, and made no submissions on liability. The court therefore held the question of liability was not up for determination.
Quantum of general damages
General damages of Kshs 400,000/- awarded for crush injury to the right hand with 30-50% assessed disability
The Claimant's cited authorities involved far more severe injuries (paralysis, arm amputation) and were not comparable; the Respondent's authorities involved near similar injuries but were decades old. The court adopted the Respondent's comparable awards, factoring inflation, to arrive at Kshs 400,000/-.
Lost income/loss of earning capacity
Claim declined for want of supporting evidence
The Claimant sought Kshs 1,800,000/- in submissions only. Because the parties agreed to determine the Cause on the record and submissions without leading oral evidence, and no evidence was led to support this head, the court declined the relief.
Legal principles established
#- Where a defendant denies liability but calls no witness and makes no submissions on liability, liability is taken as not in dispute
- General damages for personal injuries must be assessed by reference to comparable injuries in comparable awards, adjusted for inflation
- A claim for lost earnings or diminished earning capacity requires evidence to be led in support; submissions alone cannot sustain it
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the Claimant: special damages of Kshs 7,000/- and general damages of Kshs 400,000/-, total Kshs 407,000/-
- 2.Other reliefs declined, including the claim for lost income of Kshs 1,800,000/-
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Transferred to this Court by order of the High Court on 7 May 2019 (employment dispute within the jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Peter Maina Gachigi v Chinga Tea Factory Ltd [2020] KEELRC 1648 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment (transferred Cause, previously High Court suit of 1997). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1648/eng@2020-02-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.