Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause No. 1484 of 2018· [2021] KEELRC 27 (KLR)

Dominic Kioko Thyaka v Kenya Electricity Generating Company Limited [2021] KEELRC 27 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
20 December 2021
4,435 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~18 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court confirmed a Ksh.9.1 million work injury award and added Ksh.2.5 million because the employee was retired without notice or hearing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed by the respondent from 1991 as a Shift Controller at Wanjii Power Station, suffered noise-induced hearing loss attributable to workplace conditions. The National Medical Board found 100% permanent disability from profound hearing loss and recommended medical retirement; DOSHS assessed compensation initially at Ksh.6,410,630.40 (based on 38% incapacity) and later, on 17 August 2015, at Ksh.16,870,080, leaving a balance of Ksh.9,109,843.20 after partial payments. The respondent instead procured a Deed of Compensation Settlement under which it paid a total of Ksh.7,844,587.20, based on a private assessment by Dr. Chimmey Olende (93% disability), and retired the claimant on medical grounds by letter dated 24 February 2016 without notice or hearing. The claimant sought reinstatement, or alternatively 12 months' compensation for wrongful retirement, plus the unpaid DOSHS award. The court framed three issues: whether the Deed settled the claims, whether termination was unfair, and what reliefs should issue. It held the respondent, having failed to object or appeal under sections 51 and 52 of WIBA, could not displace the DOSHS award by private settlement; further, the deed was signed blank without explanation, vitiating it. Termination without the notice and hearing mandated by section 41 of the Employment Act was unfair. Reinstatement was refused as overtaken by time, and maximum compensation of 12 months was awarded at Ksh.2,558,962 based on the last gross salary of Ksh.213,246.82. The DOSHS award of Ksh.9,109,843.20 was confirmed, and the claimant received costs of the suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Deed of Compensation Settlement barred the claimant's claim for the unpaid DOSHS award

Holding

The Deed did not extinguish the claim. The respondent, having failed to lodge an objection or appeal under sections 51 and 52 of WIBA against the DOSHS award, could not substitute a private settlement; and the deed was signed blank without explanation, so it was vitiated.

Reasoning

The court held that a party dissatisfied with a Director's award under WIBA must file objections within 60 days and may appeal thereafter. The respondent instead procured a settlement outside WIBA with its insurers, which the court called a misnomer. Further, the claimant testified he signed a blank paper presented by a clerk, which evidence was uncontested, and the witness to the deed was not present. The deed was thus executed with misrepresentation, duress, undue influence, coercion and fraud and failed to reflect the claimant's intention to be paid full DOSHS dues.

p. 5
02

Whether the retirement on medical grounds was an unfair termination

Holding

Yes. The mandatory procedure under section 41 of the Employment Act was not followed; no notice or hearing was given before the medical retirement, rendering the termination unfair.

Reasoning

The Medical Board recommended retirement without the claimant being present or heard, and the respondent's own witness confirmed the claimant was not given a hearing and could not tell whether he was invited before the Board. Although the claimant had already been reasonably accommodated by transfer from the noisy control department, the respondent retired him without notice or hearing. The court found the maximum 12 months' compensation under section 49 reasonable given 24 years of service and the procedural failure.

p. 5
03

Whether reinstatement should issue

Holding

No. Reinstatement was overtaken by time as over three years had passed since termination; the alternative remedy of maximum compensation was awarded instead.

Reasoning

The claimant worked until April 2016, filed suit on 31 October 2018, and was then 48 years old. By judgment more than three years had elapsed, making reinstatement impractical. The court therefore turned to compensation, applying the last known gross salary of Ksh.213,246.82 per month for twelve months, arriving at Ksh.2,558,962, while rejecting both parties' competing salary figures.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • An award of compensation under WIBA may only be enforced by filing suit in court under section 87 of the Employment Act, 2007, as WIBA has no enforcement mechanism for Director's awards.
  • A party aggrieved by a Director's award under WIBA must pursue objections and appeals under sections 51 and 52 of WIBA; a private out-of-statute settlement cannot displace the statutory award.
  • Nothing in a settlement agreement stops an employee from disputing the lawfulness or fairness of termination of employment.
  • Termination on grounds of physical incapacity requires notice and a hearing under section 41 of the Employment Act; failure renders termination unfair.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Directorate of Occupational Safety and Health Services award of Ksh.9,109,843.20 confirmed putting into account the payments acknowledged by the claimant
  2. 2.Compensation for unfair termination of employment of Ksh.2,558,962
  3. 3.Costs of the suit to the claimant
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 and the Work Injury Benefits Act over employment and work injury claims

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Dominic Kioko Thyaka v Kenya Electricity Generating Company Limited [2021] KEELRC 27 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Cause No. 1484 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/27/eng@2021-12-20

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