Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2025] KEELRC 9 (KLR)

PJ Dave Flora Limited v Wanjala (Civil Appeal 57 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 9 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
16 January 2025
LNLINNET NDOLO
521 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court upheld a Kshs. 300,000 award to a worker with allergic bronchitis, confirming appeals rarely disturb reasonable damages awards.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court against the quantum of general damages awarded by Hon M. Chesang, RM on 14th August 2018 in favour of the Respondent, a worker who developed allergic bronchitis after exposure to chemicals without protective gear. Liability had been settled by consent, leaving only quantum for determination; the trial court awarded Kshs. 300,000 in general damages plus special damages. The Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal dated 16th November 2018 raised four grounds, principally that the award was too high and that the magistrate failed to evaluate the Appellant's evidence, and sought substitution with an award of Kshs. 100,000. Linnet Ndolo J restated the Kemfro Africa principle that an appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's assessment of damages unless the award is too low or too high as to amount to a wholly erroneous estimate. Relying on medical reports by Dr. C.O. Okere and Dr. Maina Ruga, the court found the Respondent had been exposed to a hazardous work environment and that her condition improved only after she left it, making the prospect of alternative employment indeterminate. The award of Kshs. 300,000 was held reasonable, the appeal was dismissed, and the Appellant was ordered to pay the costs of both the appeal and the proceedings in the trial court.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the appellate court could interfere with the quantum of general damages awarded by the trial court

Holding

The award of Kshs. 300,000 was reasonable and within the permissible range; the appeal on quantum failed

Reasoning

The court applied the Kemfro Africa principle that interference is warranted only where an award is too low or too high as to amount to a wholly erroneous estimate. The two medical reports established exposure to a hazardous work environment causing allergic bronchitis, with improvement only after the Respondent stopped working there. Given the indeterminate prospect of alternative employment, the trial court's assessment was held reasonable and the appeal dismissed.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An appellate court should not interfere with an assessment of damages by a trial court unless the award is too low or too high as to amount to a wholly erroneous estimate

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal fails and is dismissed
  2. 2.The Appellant to meet the costs of the appeal and of the proceedings in the trial court

Authorities

#

Cases cited (1)

  • Kemfro Africa Ltd t/a Meru Express & another v A.M. Lubia & another
    (1982-88) KLR
On appeal from
Trial court (magistrates' court)
Not stated
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the trial magistrate's court (the judgment does not state the enabling provision)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "PJ Dave Flora Limited v Wanjala (Civil Appeal 57 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 9 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/9/eng@2025-01-16

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