Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherMemorandum of Claim dated 21st June, 2023 (ELRC cause, Nakuru)· [2025] KEELRC 669 (KLR)

Kemboi v Lomolo (1961) Limited (Cause E027 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 669 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
28 February 2025
2,388 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled it cannot hear workplace injury claims until the DOSH process under WIBA is completed first.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant filed a Memorandum of Claim dated 21st June 2023 seeking general damages under the Work Injury Benefits Act, future medical expenses, special damages, interest and costs for a workplace injury sustained while acting as manager. The Respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 14th February 2024 contending that the cause is a WIBA claim which should first have been referred to the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services (DOSH) under section 52 of the Act, and that the court therefore lacks jurisdiction, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General. The Claimant opposed, citing section 12(a) of the ELRC Act, Articles 165(3)(a) and 165(6) of the Constitution, and pointing out that he had in fact reported the incident to DOSH, which by letters dated 11th March 2021 and 21st December 2021 confirmed the injury was work-related and found the Respondent had a case to answer; the Respondent nonetheless refused to file the DOSH forms. The court framed a single issue: whether the preliminary objection is merited. Applying Mukisa Biscuit, it held it has no jurisdiction over an unresolved workplace injury claim, noting that under section 22(5) the Claimant was at liberty to report directly to the Director. However, it criticised the Respondent's non-co-operation as hypocritical and, rather than dismissing the claim, granted the Claimant leave to pursue his assessment with DOSH. Costs of the preliminary objection were awarded to the Claimant. Judgment delivered virtually at Nakuru on 28th February 2025 by Anna Ngibuini Mwaure, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the preliminary objection on jurisdiction is merited

Holding

The preliminary objection is allowed; the court will not proceed with the claim, but grants the claimant leave to pursue the claim with the Director under WIBA.

Reasoning

The court accepted that WIBA claims lie first with the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services, the ELRC's jurisdiction being appellate or supervisory. The claimant had reported the injury to DOSH, which required the respondent to file DOSH forms; the respondent refused to co-operate, with Majani Mingi Sisal Estate indicating the injury was not work-related. The court noted the claimant may report directly to the Director under section 22(5) and, balancing justice, declined to dismiss the claim outright but declined to proceed, directing the claimant back to DOSH.

p. 5
02

Whether the claimant complied with the WIBA pre-court referral procedure

Holding

The claimant had done his part by reporting to the Director; it was the Respondent who failed to comply with DOSH's request for forms.

Reasoning

DOSH communicated to the Respondent by letter dated 11th March 2021, and the Respondent did not respond or file the requisite DOSH forms. The court criticised the Respondent for raising lack of reporting as a ground while itself being non-compliant, calling it hypocritical. The objection was nonetheless treated as a point of law on jurisdiction, which the court found it lacks over an unresolved WIBA claim.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • An employee may report an occupational accident to the Director at any stage under section 22(5) of the Work Injury Benefits Act.
  • A preliminary objection must be a pure point of law, per Mukisa Biscuit Manufactures Ltd v Westend Distributors.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The court will not proceed with the claim before it; the claimant is at liberty to pursue his assessment from the Director of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH)
  2. 2.The costs of the preliminary objection application to be paid to the claimant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Work Injury Benefits ActSections 16, 21, 22(5), 23, 51, 52, 5
  • Occupational Safety and Health ActSection 21
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 12(a)
  • Employment ActSection 87
  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 48, 159(2)(d), 165(3)(a), 165(6)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1B

Cases cited (6)

  • Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General & another [2019] eKLR KESC 16 (KLR)
    [2019] eKLR KESC 16 (KLR)
  • Wanyama v Danree Multihandling Services Limited [2024] KEELRC 765 (KLR)
    [2024] KEELRC 765 (KLR)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufactures Ltd v Westend Distributors [1969] E. A 696
    [1969] E.A 696
  • Simba Platinum Ltd v Simba Coach Limited & another Asha Wanjiku Ali (Interested party) [2021] eKLR
    [2021] eKLR
  • Oraro v Mbaja [2005] 1 KLR 141
    [2005] 1 KLR 141
  • Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission v Jane Cheperenger & 2 others [2015] eKLR
    [2015] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 12(a) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; Article 162(2) of the Constitution (court acting in first-instance jurisdiction over employment and labour relations matters)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kemboi v Lomolo (1961) Limited (Cause E027 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 669 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Claim dated 21st June, 2023 (ELRC cause, Nakuru). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/669/eng@2025-02-28

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.