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 43 of 2018· [2023] KEELRC 1520 (KLR)

M’Rimberia v Meru Central Dairy Co-operative Union (Cause 43 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 1520 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
9 June 2023
2,073 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court enforced a workplace injury award of over Kshs.1.8 million because the employer missed the 60-day deadline to challenge it.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by Makau J (ELRC, Nyeri, delivered 9th June 2023) determined the claimant's Notice of Motion dated 20th September 2022 seeking adoption as court orders of the Director of Occupational Safety and Health's WIBA assessment of Kshs.1,049,664.00 and of his own computation of employment dues of Kshs.1,172,850.00, pursuant to the judgment of Ongaya J of 5th May 2017 which reinstated the claimant and declared him entitled to WIBA compensation for a 2014 road accident suffered in the course of employment as a Heavy Commercial Driver. The respondent opposed, alleging the claimant failed to attend medical examination by its doctor and disputing service of the Director's assessment. The court held the assessment final: the respondent never lodged an objection within the sixty days allowed by section 51 of WIBA, and its own doctor's 30% disability assessment exceeded the Director's 25%. The assessment of Kshs.1,049,664.00 was accordingly adopted as a judgment of the court. On employment dues, the court noted the claimant's inconsistent computations and his failure to plead particulars, and adopted the respondent's computation, awarding Kshs.733,991.00 (salary Kshs.588,798.00, leave allowance Kshs.7,500.00, staff bonus Kshs.13,000.00 and annual leave Kshs.124,693.00), rejecting unauthorised deductions for salary advances since no counterclaim was filed. The total quantum adopted was Kshs.1,823,655.00, inclusive of Kshs.40,000.00 costs from the 2017 judgment, payable within 30 days, subject to statutory deductions and attracting court-rate interest thereafter, with a decree executable in default. The claimant thus obtained substantially less than the Kshs.2,222,524.00 he sought. The court lamented that the procedural mess was caused by the claimant's advocate's poorly pleaded claim.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Director of Occupational Safety and Health's WIBA assessment of Kshs.1,049,664.00 should be adopted as an order of the court

Holding

The assessment was adopted as judgment of the court

Reasoning

The respondent never lodged an objection within the 60 days allowed by section 51 of WIBA. Its own doctor assessed permanent disability at 30%, higher than the Director's 25%, so any objection would be frivolous. The assessment is final and can only be interfered with on properly invoked appellate jurisdiction.

p. 4
02

The correct computation of the claimant's employment dues

Holding

The respondent's computation of Kshs.733,991.00 was adopted, less unauthorised deductions, less the disputed annual leave claim

Reasoning

The claimant had agreed to the respondent's computation except annual leave for 2011 and 2012, then departed from that agreement inconsistently. He never pleaded particulars of his leave claim nor tendered evidence, while the respondent gave a detailed, progressive computation demonstrating good faith. Salary advances deductions were rejected as no counterclaim existed.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A final statutory assessment by the Director of Occupational Safety and Health under WIBA can only be disturbed by a properly invoked appellate jurisdiction, and otherwise falls to be adopted as a judgment of the court.
  • Parties are bound by their pleadings and a court can only travel as far as the pleadings are drawn.
  • An objection to the Director's WIBA decision must be lodged within sixty days under section 51 of the Act; a party who fails to object cannot later resist adoption of the assessment.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Adopted the Director of Occupational Safety and Health's assessment of Kshs.1,049,664.00 as judgment of the court
  2. 2.Adopted as orders of the court the employment dues totalling Kshs.733,991.00 (salary Kshs.588,798.00, leave allowance Kshs.7,500.00, staff bonus Kshs.13,000.00, annual leave Kshs.124,693.00)
  3. 3.Adopted as quantum payable: damages for bodily injuries Kshs.1,049,664.00, employment dues Kshs.733,991.00 and costs Kshs.40,000.00, totalling Kshs.1,823,655.00
  4. 4.Ordered the respondent to pay within 30 days and in default a decree be drawn and executed against the respondent
  5. 5.Award subject to statutory deductions and to attract interest at court rates from the date of the ruling if not settled within 30 days

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Work Injury Benefits Act (WIBA)Section 51(1) and (2)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) RulesRule 28(3)
Jurisdiction invoked
ELRC jurisdiction to adopt as judgment of the court the statutory assessment of the Director of Occupational Safety and Health under the Work Injury Benefits Act and to quantify dues awarded in the judgment of 5th May 2017

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "M’Rimberia v Meru Central Dairy Co-operative Union (Cause 43 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 1520 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Cause No 43 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1520/eng@2023-06-09

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