Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherNot stated in judgment· [2024] KEELRC 255 (KLR)

Adika v Supra Textiles Limited (Miscellaneous Application E096 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 255 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
15 February 2024
LNLINNET NDOLO
1,208 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 and Labour Relations Court ruled it cannot enforce work injury awards from the Director of Occupational Safety—those claims must be resolved with DOSH first.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, a former employee of the Respondent, was injured while operating a baling machine and suffered de-gloving of his right arm with alleged 60% permanent incapacity. The Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services assessed compensation at Kshs. 1,070,208, which the Respondent did not pay. The Applicant applied to have the Director's award adopted as a judgment and decree of the Court. The Respondent opposed, disputing the authenticity of the DOSH form, relying on a second assessment returning only 3% permanent incapacity, and sought a stay of proceedings and enlargement of time to lodge an objection before the Director. The Applicant raised a preliminary objection that the Respondent could not challenge the merits of the Director's award through a response to an enforcement application. Justice Linnet Ndolo examined the Work Injury Benefits Act and held that the Court's only jurisdiction under the Act is appellate over decisions of the Director; there is no provision for enforcement or adoption of the Director's awards, nor for interlocutory intervention. Following Lameck Nyakundi Anyona v W.J.J Kenya Construction Company Limited and Peter Mutua Kaloki v China State Construction & Engineering Corp (Kenya), the Court declined to assume jurisdiction, holding that the acknowledged lacuna in enforcing the Director's awards cannot justify the Court arrogating to itself jurisdiction not donated by the Constitution or statute. All emerging issues on the processing of the claim were directed to be canvassed before the Director. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Court may adopt the Director's award as its judgment and decree

Holding

The Court cannot adopt the award; adoption would exceed the jurisdiction donated by the Constitution and statute

Reasoning

The Court examined the Work Injury Benefits Act and found that its only jurisdiction is appellate over decisions of the Director. Relying on prior decisions of the Court, it held there is no statutory provision permitting enforcement or adoption of the Director's awards, and that the existence of a lacuna cannot justify the Court arrogating to itself jurisdiction not donated by the Constitution or statute.

p. 3
02

Where disputes over the Director's award should be resolved

Holding

Emerging issues on processing of the claim must be canvassed before the Director

Reasoning

Since the Court lacks primary jurisdiction over work injury compensation, questions concerning the authenticity of the DOSH form and the conflicting assessments of permanent incapacity fall to be determined by the Director, who is the proper forum under the Work Injury Benefits Act. The Court directed the parties back to the Director rather than entertaining the merits.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The Employment and Labour Relations Court has no jurisdiction to enforce or adopt awards of the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services; its only jurisdiction under the Work Injury Benefits Act is appellate

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Court declines to assume jurisdiction in the matter
  2. 2.Emerging issues regarding the processing of the claim to be canvassed before the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services
  3. 3.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 162(2)
  • Work Injury Benefits Act
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
  • Employment Act

Cases cited (2)

  • Lameck Nyakundi Anyona v W.J.J Kenya Construction Company Limited
    [2022] eKLR
  • Peter Mutua Kaloki v China State Construction & Engineering Corp (Kenya) and another
    [2022] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2) of the Constitution of Kenya; Work Injury Benefits Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Adika v Supra Textiles Limited (Miscellaneous Application E096 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 255 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/255/eng@2024-02-15

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