Reddamack Leather Centre Limited v Thiong'o (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal 30 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 318 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employer lost its appeal and must pay a worker Kshs. 503,000 because it failed to provide a safe floor, a guarded machine and supervision.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the trial court erred in holding the appellant 100% liable for the workplace accident
The finding of 100% liability on the appellant under section 6 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act was upheld; the appellant failed to ensure a safe floor free of slippery skins, to guard the machine and to ensure supervision.
The court re-evaluated the evidence. The respondent, a general worker, testified he was instructed by a supervisor to take skins next to the machine and slipped on a skin on the floor. RW1, the managing director, did not witness the accident and admitted the supervisor was not at work, leaving the question of who supervised the respondent. The court found the respondent was not careless as he wore boots, and held the employer in breach of its statutory duty of a safe workplace, safe floor and adequate supervision given his level of education and the danger of the machine.
Whether the award of Kshs. 500,000 general damages was inordinately high
The quantum award was upheld as a fair estimate of damages.
Applying the classic principles for interference with quantum, the court compared injuries: crush injuries and traumatic amputation of digits with 5-6% incapacity. The appellant's authority (Simba Posho Mills) involved comparable injuries but was 15 years old, so inflation justified the difference from the Kshs. 180,000 awarded there. The respondent's authority (Pyramid Packaging) had assessed Kshs. 650,000 for similar amputations. On that footing the court found Kshs. 500,000 not inordinately high and upheld the trial court's award.
Legal principles established
#- A first appellate court must reconsider and evaluate the evidence itself and draw its own conclusions, while making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses.
- An appellate court interferes with an award of damages only if the trial court took into account an irrelevant fact, left out a relevant fact, or the award is so inordinately low or high that it is a wholly erroneous estimate of the damages.
- Under section 6 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the occupier's duty includes provision and maintenance of a safe working environment, safe systems of work and supervision of employees.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed in its entirety
- 2.Judgment/Decree of Hon. MR. D. W. Mburu (Principal Magistrate) in Milimani CMCC No. 1069 of 2016 upheld (liability 100%; general damages Kshs. 500,000; special damages Kshs. 3,000)
- 3.Costs of the appeal to the respondent
- On appeal from
- Milimani Chief Magistrate's Court (Principal Magistrate Hon. MR. D. W. Mburu)
- Milimani CMCC No. 1069 of 2016
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over a subordinate court decree (memorandum of appeal filed 28th September 2017); no specific provision cited
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Reddamack Leather Centre Limited v Thiong'o (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal 30 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 318 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Appeal against the Judgment/Decree in Milimani CMCC No. 1069 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/318/eng@2025-02-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.