Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment excerpt· [2023] KEELRC 2011 (KLR)

Wachira Builders Limited v Lwiki (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E048 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 2011 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
4 August 2023
BOByram Ongaya
1,327 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

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled workers injured on the job must seek compensation under WIBA, not sue employers in court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The appellant, the employer, appealed against a magistrates' court judgment (Hon. P. Muholi, PM, March 2021) in CMCC No. 753 of 2018, in which the respondent, a casual hand helper, was awarded general damages of Kshs.1,050,000, special damages of Kshs.2,000 and future medical expenses of Kshs.100,000 after the trial court found the appellant 100% liable for an August 4, 2016 workplace accident in which the respondent fell from broken wooden scaffolding while carrying sand, sustaining a fractured humerus, a cut to the left leg and blunt head trauma. The appellant raised grounds on liability, quantum and, principally, jurisdiction, contending that section 16 of the Work Injury Benefits Act barred the suit in court. The respondent relied on the Chief Justice's practice directions in Gazette Notice No. 99 of April 28, 2023 covering claims pending before the Supreme Court decision in Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General. The court, as the first appellate court citing Selle v Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd, found the suit filed in February 2018 after the Court of Appeal's November 2017 affirmation of WIBA's constitutionality, and that section 16 barred the action. The trial court was bound by that decision and lacked jurisdiction, rendering its judgment a nullity. The appeal was allowed: the trial judgment was declared a nullity and void, the decree and all processes flowing from it were set aside as vacuous, and the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs in both the appeal and the trial court. The merits grounds on liability and quantum were not reached.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's workplace injury claim given section 16 of WIBA

Holding

The trial court lacked jurisdiction; the suit, filed after the affirmation of WIBA's constitutionality, was barred by section 16 and the resulting judgment was a nullity

Reasoning

The suit was filed on February 9, 2018, after the Court of Appeal on November 17, 2017 affirmed WIBA's constitutionality in Attorney General v Law Society of Kenya. Section 16 bars actions against employers for occupational injuries. The respondent offered no ground excusing non-compliance, and the trial court was bound by the Court of Appeal decision. The CJ's practice directions on pending claims did not save the suit since the jurisdictional objection was itself a merits consideration.

p. 3
02

Consequence of a judgment rendered without jurisdiction

Holding

The judgment and decree are nullities; no valid decision exists upon which the remaining grounds of appeal can be urged

Reasoning

Because jurisdiction goes to the foundation of the adjudication, a decision made in its absence is void ab initio. The court therefore declared the trial judgment a nullity, set aside the decree and all processes flowing from it, and did not reach the merits grounds on liability and quantum raised in the memorandum of appeal.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • By virtue of section 16 of WIBA, no action lies by an employee against an employer for damages in respect of an occupational accident; compensation lies only under the Act
  • A decision rendered by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot found appellate consideration on the merits

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaration that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit and that the impugned judgment is a nullity and thus void
  2. 2.The purported decree and all processes flowing from the purported judgment of the trial court set aside as essentially vacuous and a nullity
  3. 3.The respondent to pay the costs of the appellant both for the appeal and the proceedings before the trial court

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Work Injury Benefits Actsection 16

Cases cited (4)

  • Selle v Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd
    [1968] EA 123
  • Abdul Hammed Sarif v Ali Mohammed Solan
    [1955] 22 EACA 270
  • Attorney General v Law Society of Kenya & another
    [2017] eKLR
  • Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General & another, Petition 4 of 2019
On appeal from
Magistrates' Court
CMCC No. 753 of 2018
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the magistrates' court; s.16 of the Work Injury Benefits Act considered on jurisdiction

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wachira Builders Limited v Lwiki (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E048 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 2011 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2011/eng@2023-08-04

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