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 (not stated in judgment; Memorandum of Appeal filed in High Court, Kakamega on 26 September 2018)· [2021] KEELRC 1920 (KLR)

West Kenya Sugar CO Ltd v Tito Lucheli Tangale [2021] KEELRC 1920 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
23 March 2021
RSRadido Stephen
2,474 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondent sued the Appellant in the Magistrates Court on 8 June 2017 for workplace injuries sustained on 20 October 2016. When the defence raised the Court of Appeal decision in Attorney-General v Law Society of Kenya (2017), the trial Magistrate ruled on 13 September 2018 that he had jurisdiction over work injury claims under the Work Injury Benefits Act, relying partly on conservatory orders from the Mombasa High Court in Juma Nyamawi Ndungo. The Appellant appealed to the High Court at Kakamega, which transferred the appeal to the ELRC for lack of jurisdiction. Radido J traced the turbulent history of section 16 of WIBA, which ousted courts' jurisdiction over workplace injury claims from 2 June 2008. The High Court stayed section 16 on 22 May 2008 and declared it unconstitutional on 4 March 2009; the Court of Appeal reinstated it on 17 November 2017 and the Supreme Court agreed on 3 December 2019, while observing that pre-WIBA claimants enjoyed legitimate expectation. Holding that judge-declared law remains valid until set aside, the Court concluded that all claims lodged between 22 May 2008 and 3 December 2019 were validly within judicial jurisdiction, since litigants relied on the then-operative declarations. Denying such claimants a hearing would be antithetical to access to justice under Article 48 and would expose them to a limitation bar under section 26 WIBA; they may also assert legitimate expectation. The appeal was dismissed with no order on costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Status of section 16 of WIBA and court jurisdiction during the period of judicial challenges

Holding

Claims lodged with the Courts between 22 May 2008 (interlocutory stay of section 16) and 3 December 2019 (Supreme Court judgment) were validly within the jurisdiction of the Courts

Reasoning

The High Court stayed section 16 on 22 May 2008 and declared it unconstitutional on 4 March 2009; the Court of Appeal dismissed a stay application on 10 July 2009, so the declaration remained law until the Court of Appeal judgment of 17 November 2017. Absent any Supreme Court stay, litigants filed claims relying on judge-declared law, which remained valid until set aside.

p. 5
02

Access to justice under Articles 48 and 159(2)(c)

Holding

Adopting the Appellant's position would defeat the constitutional right of access to justice and expose claimants to an insurmountable limitation plea under section 26 WIBA

Reasoning

Employees who moved the courts after 22 May 2008 did so on the assurance of judge-declared law. Directing them to the Director of Occupational Safety and Health at that stage would expose them to a limitation bar under section 26 WIBA regarding reporting of accidents, causing great injustice for reasons beyond their control.

p. 5
03

Legitimate expectation

Holding

Litigants who filed claims between 22 May 2008 and 3 December 2019 in reliance on judge-declared law may assert legitimate expectation to have their claims concluded by the courts

Reasoning

Following the approach of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in the Law Society of Kenya litigation, which used legitimate expectation to protect claimants with pre-WIBA pending cases, the Court extended the doctrine to those who filed on the strength of judge-declared law during the period of uncertainty.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Until set aside or vacated, a court order, including judge-made or judge-declared law, is valid and litigants may order their affairs in reliance on it
  • All work-injury claims lodged with the Courts between 22 May 2008 and 3 December 2019 were validly within the jurisdiction of the Courts, absent stay orders
  • Litigants who filed disputes during that period can assert legitimate expectation to have their claims heard to conclusion by the Courts

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Appeal is dismissed
  2. 2.No order on costs
On appeal from
Magistrates Court
Cause lodged 8 June 2017 (number not stated)
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate jurisdiction over the Magistrates Court matter transferred to the Employment and Labour Relations Court by the High Court on 29 April 2019 citing lack of jurisdiction

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "West Kenya Sugar CO Ltd v Tito Lucheli Tangale [2021] KEELRC 1920 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Appeal from Kakamega CMCC (not stated in judgment; Memorandum of Appeal filed in High Court, Kakamega on 26 September 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1920/eng@2021-03-23

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