Munywoki v China Road and Bridge Corporation Limited (Appeal 11 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 126 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A single payslip was enough to prove employment, so a worker injured on the job won his claim despite losing at trial.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Appellant proved he was an employee of the Respondent at the time of the injury
Yes - the payslip was sufficient proof of employment, uncontroverted by any evidence from the Respondent.
The trial court dismissed the suit because the payslip produced was for February 2015 and not the latest month. The appellate court found no basis for that finding: the Respondent called no witness and adduced no evidence to controvert the payslip or the Appellant's testimony. Relying on the principle that unchallenged evidence stands, the court held the payslip proved employment and that the trial court misapprehended the evidence, arriving at a wrong conclusion.
Whether the Respondent was liable for the accident
Yes, 100% liability, for requiring the Appellant to work at night without adequate lighting or safety gear.
The Appellant testified he was assigned to backfill a culvert at night with insufficient lighting from a tractor, had no safety gear, and knew a helmet or safety belt would have prevented the injuries. The Respondent adduced no evidence to rebut this. The court found the Respondent entirely liable for exposing the Appellant to a dangerous environment without safety gear.
What is reasonable compensation for the injuries
General damages of Kshs. 150,000 plus special damages of Kshs. 3,000.
The trial court had indicated it would have awarded Kshs. 80,000 as general damages and Kshs. 3,000 special damages. The court considered comparable awards cited by the Appellant (Kshs. 350,000 and Kshs. 175,000 for soft tissue injuries) and the medical evidence that the Appellant was likely to fully recover, and assessed Kshs. 150,000 as reasonable.
Legal principles established
#- A first appellate court must re-evaluate the entire case and draw its own conclusions while making allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses.
- An appellate court will not disturb an award of damages unless it is inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate.
- Unchallenged evidence of employment, such as a payslip produced without rebuttal evidence, proves the employment relationship.
Court orders
#- 1.The whole of the judgment of the trial court is set aside and judgment entered in favour of the Appellant
- 2.General damages for pain and suffering awarded at Kshs. 150,000
- 3.Special damages awarded at Kshs. 3,000
- 4.The Appellant to have costs in both the appeal and the trial court
- 5.The award shall accrue interest from the date of filing the appeal
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court at Machakos
- CMCC No. 520 of 2015
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal transferred from the High Court Civil Division to the Employment and Labour Relations Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Munywoki v China Road and Bridge Corporation Limited (Appeal 11 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 126 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). High Court Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2018 (transferred to ELRC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/126/eng@2025-01-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.