Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedAppeal from Kakamega CMCC (number not stated in judgment; file given new number in this Court)· [2021] KEELRC 809 (KLR)

West Kenya Sugar Co Ltd v Nickson Manyasa Juma [2021] KEELRC 809 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
8 October 2021
RSRadido Stephen
1,639 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

#

A Kenyan court confirmed a Kshs 350,000 award to an injured sugar worker because the company failed to properly contest liability and damages during the trial.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first-instance appellate judgment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu, in which Radido Stephen, J dismissed West Kenya Sugar Co Ltd's appeal against a magistrates' court judgment of 17 February 2016 awarding Nickson Manyasa Juma general damages of Kshs 350,000/- and special damages of Kshs 7,000/- for injuries sustained when a heavy tractor plate fell on his right leg while he worked as a casual labourer. The appeal was originally filed in the High Court at Kakamega and transferred to this Court in November 2018 on jurisdictional concerns. At the hearing, the Appellant condensed the grounds to liability and quantum, while the Respondent challenged the competency of the appeal for want of certified copies of the proceedings. The Court found the competency challenge overtaken by events, as a Supplementary Record of Appeal with certified proceedings had been filed. On liability, the Court held that the plaint sufficiently put the Appellant on notice, that the Respondent testified he was made to carry alone a plate requiring six persons or a crane, that the Appellant's only witness did not witness the accident, and that the failure to call the Respondent's supervisor, who was privy to the accident, was unexplained; the finding on liability and standard of proof could not be disturbed. On quantum, the Appellant had filed no submissions before the Magistrate and squandered the opportunity to distinguish the Eldoret Steel Mills authority relied upon. The appeal was dismissed with costs both before the Magistrates Court and this Court.

Key legal issues

#
01

Competency of the appeal

Holding

The competency challenge failed because the Supplementary Record of Appeal with certified proceedings was subsequently filed and hearing directions issued.

Reasoning

The Respondent argued, relying on Order 42 Rules 2 and 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 65(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act, that absence of certified copies rendered the appeal fatally defective. The Court noted that a Supplementary Record of Appeal was filed on 31 March 2021 and directions for hearing were given on 29 April 2021, so the objection was overtaken by events.

p. 2
02

Liability in negligence

Holding

The Magistrate's finding on liability could not be disturbed; the plaint sufficiently pleaded negligence and the burden of proof was discharged.

Reasoning

The plaint pleaded that the Respondent, a casual worker, was injured when a heavy tractor plate fell on his leg due to the Appellant's negligence. He testified he was asked to carry a plate requiring six persons or a crane alone. The Appellant's only witness, a Clerk, did not witness the accident, and the Respondent's supervisor, who was privy to it, was not called, without explanation.

p. 3
03

Quantum of damages

Holding

The award of Kshs 350,000/- general damages was not disturbed as the Appellant filed no submissions on quantum before the Magistrate.

Reasoning

The Magistrate relied on Eldoret Steel Mills Ltd v George Ochieng Owino, where Kshs 200,000/- for soft tissue injuries was left undisturbed. The Appellant never filed submissions guiding the Magistrate on assessment, and on appeal failed to distinguish that authority, so could not fault the Magistrate's exercise of discretion.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A pleading is sufficient if it puts the opposite party on notice of the case advanced, with details left to evidence at trial
  • A failure by a party to call a witness privy to the accident, without explanation, may be weighed against that party
  • A party who files no submissions on quantum before the trial court cannot later fault the assessment of damages

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Appeal is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the Appeal and of the suit before the Magistrates Court awarded to the Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 2
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 13
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 65(1)(b)

Cases cited (6)

  • Paul Karenyi Leshuel v Ephantus Kariithi Mwangi & Ar
    (2015) eKLR
  • Rachel Wambui Nganga & Ar v Rahab Wairimu Kamau
    (2020) eKLR
  • Chege v Suleiman
    (1988) eKLR
  • Elizabeth O. Odhiambo v South Nyanza Sugar Co Ltd
    (2019) eKLR
  • Joyce Wanjiku Kimani v Eunice Maina & 2 Ors
    (2020) eKLR
  • Eldoret Steel Mills Ltd v George Ochieng Owino
    (2011) eKLR
On appeal from
Magistrates Court (Kakamega)
not stated
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 65(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act (appeal from subordinate court); transferred from the High Court on jurisdictional concerns

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "West Kenya Sugar Co Ltd v Nickson Manyasa Juma [2021] KEELRC 809 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Appeal from Kakamega CMCC (number not stated in judgment; file given new number in this Court). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/809/eng@2021-10-08

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