Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCStruck OutNot stated in the judgment text· [2021] KEELRC 1234 (KLR)

Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union v KTDA Mogogosiek Tea Factory [2021] KEELRC 1234 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
15 July 2021
HWHellen Wasilwa
1,370 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court struck out a worker's injury compensation claim because the WIBA Director's award had not first been adopted as a court order.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
A trade union claimant, on behalf of its member Sammy Kipkemboi Rono (the grievant), sued the respondent employer claiming Kshs. 1,525,453 as compensation for an industrial accident of 19th November 2017 in which the grievant, a shift mechanic, was electrocuted and fell from a height, suffering injuries assessed at 35% incapacity. The Work Injury Evaluation Clinic had awarded him Kshs. 1,525,453 on 24th April 2019, but the respondent, through UAP Insurance, offered only Kshs. 414,276 by a settlement voucher which was never paid. The claimant sought a declaration that the reduced payment was wrongful and an order compelling payment of the assessed award with interest and costs. The respondent denied the accident, challenged the degree of incapacity and objected to the court's jurisdiction over what it termed a WIBA matter, but did not participate in the hearing, which proceeded by formal proof. Justice Hellen Wasilwa held that work injury matters are determined under WIBA by the Director, and that redress in the ELRC lies only by way of appeal. Since the Director's decision had not been adopted by the lower court to become a court order, and the claimant had not taken the envisaged steps, the claim was improperly before the court. The court struck out the claim and directed the parties to follow the proper channels before appealing to the ELRC if at all. No costs order was made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the ELRC over unadopted WIBA Director's awards

Holding

The claim was improperly before the court and was struck out

Reasoning

The court held that under WIBA, work injury matters are assessed and awarded by the Director, and any aggrieved party's redress in the ELRC lies only as an appeal. The grievant's award of Kshs. 1,525,453 by the Work Injury Evaluation Clinic had not been adopted by the lower court to become a court order, nor had the applicant taken the steps envisaged. The matter therefore lacked a proper procedural foundation before the ELRC.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Matters of injury at work are to be determined under WIBA by the Director, and any aggrieved party may seek redress in the ELRC only by way of appeal
  • A decision of the WIBA Director must be adopted by the lower court to become a court order enforceable in, and appealable to, the ELRC

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claim before the Court is struck out
  2. 2.Parties directed to follow the proper channels before appealing to this court if at all

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Work Injury Benefits ActSection 10(2)
  • Work Injury Benefits ActSection 34
  • Work Injury Benefits ActSection 51(1)
  • Work Injury Benefits ActSection 26(6)
  • Work Injury Benefits ActSection 52
  • Employment ActSection 34
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court Act No. 20 of 2014Section 12(1)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 162(2)
  • Civil Procedure ActRules made thereunder (re enforceability)

Cases cited (1)

  • Jared Ingling Obuya –v- Handicap International
    [2021] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2) of the Constitution read with Section 12(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act No. 20 of 2014; the court however held the claim improperly before it as a WIBA matter not brought by way of appeal from an adopted decision of the Director

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.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union v KTDA Mogogosiek Tea Factory [2021] KEELRC 1234 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment text. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1234/eng@2021-07-15

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