Ogada v Multimedia University of Kenya (Cause E192 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 2973 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled an employee must prove he caught Covid-19 at work; without medical evidence, his employer cannot be forced to pay his hospital bill.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant contracted Covid-19 in the line of duty so as to fix liability on the Respondent
The Claimant failed to prove contraction of the disease at work; no logbooks, patient records or medical findings connected the infection to the workplace, and he was off-duty when he apparently contracted it
The Court noted the incubation period of 2 to 14 days and that the Claimant had travelled upcountry two days before admission. He produced no logbooks or records of patients ferried, and did not show what precautions he personally took or how the ambulance was cleaned. The Respondent had issued memos showing heightened alertness. Absent a medical finding, the blame could not be pinned on the employer.
Whether the employer was bound to settle the medical bill excess beyond the medical cover
No; the Claimant incorrectly assumed the Respondent was bound to meet the extra payments, which would have been gratuitous
The Court held that while the Claimant was entitled to seek support, the Respondent's contribution beyond the medical cover and NHIF would be ex gratia. The request had been declined, and the Claimant could not force the Respondent to assist. Under section 34(4) of the Employment Act, the employer's liability does not extend to treatment covered by Government or insurance schemes.
Whether the Respondent was liable under the guarantee/security agreement with Nairobi West Hospital
The Respondent was a stranger to that contract and not liable under it
The Respondent invoked privity of contract, relying on City Council of Nairobi v Wilfred Kamau Githua, that a contract cannot impose obligations on strangers to it. The Court, having found no employer liability, declined to restrain the Hospital from recovering the unpaid charges secured by the Claimant's friend's title.
Legal principles established
#- An employer is not automatically liable for an employee's Covid-19 infection where there is no medical evidence linking the contraction to the workplace, and the employee bears some responsibility for his own safety
- An employer's assistance with medical expenses beyond statutory or insurance cover is gratuitous and cannot be compelled as a matter of law
- Section 34(4) of the Employment Act disapplies employer liability for medical treatment provided free by Government or under an insurance scheme covering the employee
Court orders
#- 1.The claim was dismissed - the Court held the contraction of Covid-19 could not be pinned on the Respondent
- 2.The Court declined to injunct the Hospital from recovering the unpaid charges due from the Claimant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction; matter disposed of under Rule 21 of the Rules of the Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ogada v Multimedia University of Kenya (Cause E192 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 2973 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Memorandum of claim dated 28th February 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2973/eng@2023-11-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.