Aloo v Afribright Limited (Miscellaneous Application E293 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 565 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment and Labour Relations Court cannot extend time to file a work injury claim in Kenya; injured workers must instead apply to the Director with proof the employer knew of the accident.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the ELRC has jurisdiction to extend time for lodging a work injury claim with the Director
The ELRC has no such jurisdiction; the Work Injury Benefits Act contains no provision empowering it, and the Director is the proper forum to admit late claims
The court held that jurisdiction is donated by the Constitution or statute and cannot be conferred through judicial craft. The Work Injury Benefits Act has no express provision empowering the ELRC to extend time; sections 21, 22, 26 and 27 direct the employee to lodge evidence of report or employer knowledge with the Director, who decides admission. Section 52(2) vests only appellate jurisdiction in the ELRC over the Director's decisions, confirming there is no original jurisdiction over extension requests.
Whether equity or the Limitation of Actions Act may fill the statutory lacuna
No; invoking equity to confer jurisdiction amounts to conferring jurisdiction through innovation, and the Limitation of Actions Act addresses three- and six-year timelines, not the twelve-month regime under WIBA
The court respectfully differed from Wanyama, holding that equity cannot confer jurisdiction the statute withholds. The Limitation of Actions Act governs extension for contract (six years) and tort (three years) claims, which is incompatible with the WIBA's specific twelve-month window outside which a claim abates. Further, the application before the court was not brought under the Limitation of Actions Act in any event.
Whether the Applicant demonstrated report of the injury or employer knowledge
No; the affidavits contained no averment of report within the statutory timelines, and the medical receipts showed the Applicant mostly paid his own bills
Even assuming jurisdiction existed, the Applicant had to show he reported the injury to the employer within the timelines set in law or that the employer knew of the accident. The affidavits contained no such averment. The receipts for medical bills showed most were paid by the Applicant; one payment by a third party, Douglas Mutale, could not be attributed to the Respondent.
Legal principles established
#- Jurisdiction of a court or tribunal is donated by the Constitution or statute and cannot be conferred through judicial craft or equity
- The ELRC has no jurisdiction to enlarge the time for lodging a claim with the Director under the Work Injury Benefits Act; such requests are for the Director, supported by evidence of report to the employer or employer's knowledge
- A work injury claim may only be entertained outside twelve months if the employee reported the accident to the employer within the statutory timelines or the employer was aware of the accident despite non-reporting
Court orders
#- 1.The application is dismissed with costs to the Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 21, 22(1)(2)(5), 26 and 27 of the Work Injury Benefits Act (as invoked by the Applicant); the court found it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Aloo v Afribright Limited (Miscellaneous Application E293 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 565 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/565/eng@2025-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.