Zhongmei Engineering Group Ltd v Nyachiro (Appeal 2 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 1165 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that work-injury claims filed while a key WIBA section was invalid belong in court, and upheld a Kshs 1,000,000 damages award.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Principal Magistrates Court over the work-injury claim
The trial magistrate had jurisdiction because when the suit was filed on 21 February 2017, section 16 of WIBA stood declared invalid by the High Court and that declaration was never stayed pending appeal.
The court traced the litigation history of WIBA: the High Court on 4 March 2009 declared section 16 invalid; the Court of Appeal only overturned that declaration on 17 November 2017, having refused a stay in 2009. Thus, at the date of filing, the ouster in section 16 was inoperative. The Chief Justice's Practice Directions of 28 April 2023 further underscore the courts' jurisdiction over claims filed before the Supreme Court decision.
Whether the general damages award was excessive
The award of Kshs 1,000,000/- before contributory negligence was not inordinately excessive, though the trial magistrate's chosen comparable authority involved dissimilar injuries.
The court found that the authority relied on by the trial magistrate (Jacinta Wanjiku v Samson Mwangi) involved spinal injuries completely unlike the respondent's acetabulum and ankle fractures, and should not have been used. Comparing instead with Joseph Njeru Luke & Ors v Stella M. Kioko, where similar pelvic and soft tissue injuries attracted Kshs 750,000/-, the court nonetheless held the award not inordinately excessive. The appellant also made no submissions supporting the excessiveness ground.
Whether the special damages award was supported by evidence
The special damages of Kshs 4,383/- were properly awarded as they were supported by receipts admitted by consent.
The respondent pleaded and proved special damages of Kshs 4,383/- by producing receipts comprising medical report and expenses, which were admitted by consent of the parties. The court found the award was grounded on documentary evidence admitted by the appellant, so the appellant's ground attacking special damages failed.
Legal principles established
#- The question of jurisdiction can be raised at any time, even on appeal, and equally at the instance of the court.
- The role of a first appellate court is to re-evaluate the evidence and reach its own conclusions, making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses.
- During the period section 16 of WIBA stood declared invalid (until the Supreme Court decision in Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General), courts retained jurisdiction over pending work-injury claims.
Court orders
#- 1.Finding that the Principal Magistrate's Court had jurisdiction
- 2.Finding that the assessment and award of general damages was not excessive
- 3.Appeal dismissed with costs
- On appeal from
- Principal Magistrates Court (via High Court, Nyamira, which declined jurisdiction and transferred the appeal)
- Not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over an appeal against quantum in a civil claim transferred from the High Court; Practice Directions Relating to Pending Court Claims regarding compensation for work related injuries and diseases, Gazette Notice No. 5476 of 28 April 2023
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Zhongmei Engineering Group Ltd v Nyachiro (Appeal 2 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 1165 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in judgment (Memorandum of Appeal filed in the High Court at Nyamira on 12 January 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1165/eng@2023-05-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.