Kimiyu v Career Directions Limited & another (Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 173 (KLR)
The bottom line
#An employer who ignores the 60-day window to object to a workplace injury award cannot fight it in court years later.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 1st Respondent was denied natural justice in the Director's award process
No — the 1st Respondent itself reported the accident and supplied the salary figures used, and it never attempted to object or appeal within the statutory window.
Under section 22 of WIBA the employer must report an accident to the Director. The 1st Respondent annexed the DOSH Form 1 by which it made the report, and the same form contained the salary figure used to compute compensation. It could not complain of being condemned unheard when it participated in and supplied the material for the process, and after receiving the demand letter it requested particulars and then went silent without lodging any objection or appeal.
Whether the Director's award should be adopted as an order of the Court
Yes — the award was adopted and judgment entered for Kshs 115,437 with costs and interest from filing.
Sections 51 and 52 of the Work Injury Benefits Act allow an aggrieved person to object within sixty days and appeal to the Industrial Court within thirty days of the Director's reply. The 1st Respondent did neither, nor did it seek leave to object out of time upon being served with the application. Having slept on its rights, it was estopped from resisting adoption, and the award was adopted as an order of the court.
Whether the 1st Respondent could recover payments allegedly made in error/excess
No — no substantive application was made and no evidence of error; payments were voluntary.
The counterclaim was raised only in a replying affidavit without a substantive motion. On the evidence the 1st Respondent voluntarily continued paying the Applicant's salary during his incapacitation and cannot reclaim those payments merely because he was awarded compensation for his injuries.
Legal principles established
#- A party that reported the accident to the Director and furnished the salary particulars used to compute compensation cannot later claim it was condemned unheard.
- Failure to lodge an objection or appeal against the Director's award within the statutory period estops a party from objecting to it at the adoption stage.
Court orders
#- 1.The award of the Director of Occupational Safety and Health is adopted as an award of this court and judgment is entered against the 1st Respondent in the sum of Kshs 115,437 with costs
- 2.Interest shall accrue from the date of filing the application in this court
- 3.Costs of the application to the Applicant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 51 and 52 of the Work Injury Benefits Act (adoption of the Director of Occupational Safety and Health's award as an order of the Court)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kimiyu v Career Directions Limited & another (Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 173 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/173/eng@2025-01-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.