Ogola v Bob Morgan Services Ltd (Miscellaneous Case E124 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 435 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled it cannot directly enforce workplace injury awards from DOSH, striking out an injured worker's claim for over Kshs.1.2 million.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the respondent's Notice of Preliminary Objection raises a competent Preliminary Objection
- 2.Whether the Employment and Labour Relations Court has jurisdiction to adopt/adopt awards of the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services (DOSH) as judgments of the court
- 3.Whether the applicant's application is time barred under Section 89 of the Employment Act
- 4.Whether the respondent's amended Preliminary Objection on limitation of time should be allowed
Key legal issues
#Competency of the Preliminary Objection
The PO meets the Mukisa Biscuit threshold as it is grounded on jurisdiction, which may be raised at any stage
The applicant did not contest that the objection raised a pure point of law. Since it was grounded on the foundational issue of jurisdiction, it could be raised at any point in the proceedings, including through submissions and viva voce, following Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lilian S'.
Jurisdiction to adopt DOSH awards
The ELRC has no jurisdiction to adopt DOSH assessments as its orders; its only jurisdiction under WIBA is appellate under Section 52(2)
The court acknowledged two schools of thought but noted both agree WIBA contains a lacuna. Following its own earlier decision in John Munene v Kenya Wildlife Services, adoption would convert the assessment into a judgment of the court, and the court cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction not conferred by law. Being bound by the principle that jurisdiction is everything, it struck out the application.
Legibility of DOSH forms relied upon
The DOSH forms relied on by the applicant were barely readable and failed the test of legibility
The court observed that neither the CTS copy nor the printed copy was legible. It has previously declined applications on grounds of illegibility of DOSH Forms, which are an indispensable pillar of such applications, citing Abdiaziz Abdullahi Ibrahim v Abdirizak Ali Ahmed on the duty to reject illegible documents.
Legal principles established
#- A court cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction not conferred by the Constitution or written law
- WIBA confers only appellate jurisdiction on the ELRC against decisions of the Director, not jurisdiction to adopt DOSH awards as court orders
- Documents filed in court must be legible; illegible documents do not serve the intended purpose
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's Notice of Motion dated 25th November, 2024 is struck out
- 2.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (issue of whether these confer jurisdiction to adopt DOSH awards); Section 52(2) of the Work Injury Benefits Act confers only appellate jurisdiction
Relief refused
#Adoption of the DOSH assessment dated 7th July, 2021 as a judgment of the court (Kshs.1,206,297.60)
The court lacks jurisdiction to adopt DOSH awards; WIBA confers only appellate jurisdiction under Section 52(2)
Fine of Kshs.500,000.00 against the respondent for failing to compensate the applicant
Application struck out for want of jurisdiction
Costs
No orders as to costs - each party to bear their own costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The upshot of the foregoing is that the applicant's Notice of Motion dated 25th November, 2024 is struck out with no Orders as to costs.
this court is not persuaded that it has jurisdiction to adopt the assessment or awards by the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services as its Orders
Jurisdiction is everything
Having found that this is an appellate court for purposes of the decisions of the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services, the Preliminary Objection herein is merited and the Application herein is dismissed
It cannot be over-emphasized that documents filed in court by parties for purposes of litigation must be legible for ease of use by the court. An illegible document does not serve the intended purpose.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to 'Peter Mutua Koloki' in the submissions and 'Peter Mutua Kaloki' in the analysis for the same authority
The judgment quotes 'John Munene V Kenya Wildlife Services & Another (Supra)' although it was not previously cited in the submissions reproduced in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ogola v Bob Morgan Services Ltd (Miscellaneous Case E124 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 435 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Application dated 25th November, 2024 (filed 15th October, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/435/eng@2025-02-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.