Musyimi v Kenya Suitcase Manufacturers Limited (Appeal E148 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 784 (KLR)

The court traced the constitutional litigation on WIBA: the High Court in Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General suspended key sections, but the Court of Appeal set that judgment aside on 17 November 2017 and the Supreme Court affirmed. The Court of Appeal had directed that pending litigation continue under the pre-WIBA regime, but the appellant filed his case post-WIBA on 24 January 2017, so he was governed and regulated under WIBA. The binding superior court judgments required the trial court to decline jurisdiction.

The court stated the standard applicable to a first appeal before turning to the jurisdictional question, which it raised suo motu as a legal issue neither party had addressed.

Although the appellant argued that the award of Ksh.600,000 was too low, that he required Ksh.80,000 monthly rehabilitation, and that at 23 years old he had lost earning capacity computed at Ksh.15,000 x 12 x 36 x 45% = Ksh.2,196,000, the court held the trial court should never have entertained the claim, and compensation for loss of earnings and future medical care would have been addressed by the Director's office under WIBA.