Oyuga v Harvest Limited (Appeal 2 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 1922 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan worker who sued for pesticide-related lung damage lost because workplace injury claims must go through WIBA's compensation process, not the courts.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether Gazette Notice No. 9243 of 27.07.2011 conferred jurisdiction on the trial magistrate to entertain a work injury claim notwithstanding section 16 of WIBA
The gazette notice remained in force despite repeal of section 16(2) of the Labour Institutions Act, but could not confer jurisdiction inconsistent with section 16 of WIBA, which ousts court actions for work injury damages
The court found the gazette notice was never revoked and remained valid under section 24 of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act. However, being subsidiary legislation, it could not override the primary provision in section 16 of WIBA, which bars actions for recovery of damages for occupational accidents save under the Act. Since the suit was filed after WIBA came into operation, section 16 applied and the magistrate's court had no jurisdiction.
Whether the Chief Justice was required to appoint magistrates by name rather than by rank
Appointment by rank of Senior Resident Magistrate and above was sufficient; the trial court erred in requiring appointment by name
The enabling legislation, section 29(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, permits the Chief Justice to appoint magistrates by notice in the gazette without specifying names. Appointment of all magistrates of the rank of Senior Resident Magistrate and above was therefore effective, though the notice still could not confer jurisdiction over WIBA claims.
Whether the conservatory order in Juma Nyamawi Ndungo obliged the trial court to assume jurisdiction
There was no evidence the decision was drawn to the trial court's attention before its judgment
The Ogola conservatory order of July 24, 2018 stayed sections of WIBA and allowed magistrate court injury claims to proceed. However, the trial court delivered judgment on September 29, 2018, and the record contained nothing showing the order had been brought to its attention and urged as a basis for assuming jurisdiction, so it could not be faulted for ignoring it.
Legal principles established
#- Subsidiary legislation cannot be inconsistent with a primary statutory provision
- Subsidiary legislation issued under a repealed statutory provision remains in force until revoked, per section 24 of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act
- Appointment of magistrates under section 29(3) of the ELRC Act by rank is sufficient; no requirement of appointment by name
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is disallowed
- 2.Each party to bear own costs of the appeal/proceedings
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court (transferred from the High Court at Machakos)
- Civil Appeal No. 137 of 2018
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, section 29; appeal transferred to the ELRC by order of the High Court (M.W. Muigai J, April 17, 2023)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Oyuga v Harvest Limited (Appeal 2 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 1922 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Civil Appeal No. 137 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1922/eng@2023-07-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.