Makomboki Tea Factory Limited v Mwaura (Miscellaneous Application E002 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2145 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court in Nyeri struck out Sasini PLC's bid to reopen a work injury award, ruling employers must challenge DOSH decisions through the correct legal channels.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction to remit a DOSH award or enlarge time for objection after the statutory period
The court had no jurisdiction to grant the orders sought; the application was not properly moved.
Sections 51 and 52 of WIBA provide the avenue to challenge a DOSH decision: objection to the Director within 60 days and appeal to the Industrial Court within 30 days of the Director's reply. The Applicant's complaints about service and the second medical opinion should have been raised before the Thika Magistrates' Court where the award was filed for adoption and enforcement. There was no appeal or judicial review before the judge, and the Director was not joined. Having found no jurisdiction, the court struck out the application with costs.
Invocability of the court's inherent jurisdiction
Inherent jurisdiction could not be invoked on these facts.
The Applicant argued that failure to serve the DOSH assessment denied it the chance to object, creating a lacuna warranting the court's inherent power. The court rejected this, holding that inherent jurisdiction exists only to fill gaps in the law and meet the ends of justice, not as a remedy for a party out of step with adjectival law. The claim of non-service did not open a gap in the statute; the statutory objection and appeal channels existed and were not shown to be unavailable.
Legal principles established
#- A court must down tools once it finds it lacks jurisdiction over a matter.
- Inherent jurisdiction is only available where there is a gap in the law, not to rescue a party who has fallen foul of adjectival law.
- Challenges to a DOSH award filed for adoption in a subordinate court ought to be raised in those proceedings, not by a fresh application in the ELRC without joining the Director.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 5th March, 2024 struck out with costs.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; sections 25 and 51 of the Work Injury Benefits Act (as invoked by the Applicant)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kisenge v China Communications Construction Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application E214 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1917 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 1917 (KLR)25 Jun 2025applied
- Ng’ang’a v Timsales Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E035 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 824 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 824 (KLR)14 Mar 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Makomboki Tea Factory Limited v Mwaura (Miscellaneous Application E002 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2145 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Notice of Motion Application dated 5th March 2024 (ELRC, Nyeri). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2145/eng@2024-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.