Lusaka v Lachlan Kenya Ltd (Miscellaneous Application E265 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 794 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded an injured employee Kshs 14.6 million after his employer missed the 60-day deadline to object and a separation agreement did not waive work injury compensation.
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 discharged its statutory duty to report the accident under section 21 of the Work Injury Benefits Act
- 2.Whether the Separation Agreement and discharge voucher waived the applicant's statutory right to compensation
- 3.Whether the Respondent lodged a valid Objection under section 51(1) within the prescribed 60 days after notification of the award
- 4.Whether the allegations of forgery and discrepancies in documents defeated the DOSH assessment
- 5.Whether the Motion dated 10 November 2023 should be allowed
Key legal issues
#Whether the Separation Agreement discharged the Respondent from liability for statutory compensation
The discharge challenge failed because the agreement concerned resignation and final dues, not statutory compensation
The Court held that the Separation Agreement dated 14 June 2023 dealt with the applicant's resignation and payment of final dues. Compensation under the Work Injury Benefits Act is a statutory entitlement and cannot be characterised as final dues. Nothing in the agreement indicated the applicant waived his statutory right to compensation for injuries sustained in the course of work.
Whether the Respondent lodged a valid and timely Objection to the DOSH assessment
No valid objection was lodged within the prescribed timelines; the Director confirmed no objection was lodged as envisaged under section 51(1)
The Director notified the Respondent of the award on 28 September 2022 through email based on the online reporting platform. The Respondent did not object within the prescribed 60 days. The letter dated 6 May 2024 sought extension of time and the Director confirmed the Objection was not lodged within prescribed timelines. The Respondent could not feign ignorance of the award.
Whether allegations of forgery and document discrepancies defeated the assessment
The forgery and discrepancy allegations were unsubstantiated and did not detract from the fact of the accident
Despite contending forgery of the Administrative Assistant's signature, the Respondent did not produce an affidavit from that officer. No admissible evidence showed forgery of medical records or that AAR Hospital disowned the report. Discrepancies in the Police Abstract and DOSH Form 1 on time of accident did not detract from the fact that an accident occurred and the Respondent and insurers were promptly informed.
Legal principles established
#- Compensation due under the Work Injury Benefits Act is statutory and cannot be categorised as final dues waivable through a separation agreement
- Failure to lodge an objection within the prescribed 60 days after notification of an award precludes the employer from contesting the assessment
Court orders
#- 1.The Court adopts the assessment of the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services dated 28 September 2022
- 2.A decree for Kshs 14,599,469/- to issue in accordance with the assessment of the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services against the Respondent together with interest from the date the award was granted
- 3.The applicant to have costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Work Injuries Benefits Act, including sections 21, 26(6) and 51(1)
Relief refused
#Declaration that the Respondent committed an offence contrary to section 26(6) of the Work Injury Benefits Act and committal of the Directors to one year in jail or a fine of Kshs 500,000/- or both
The final orders did not grant prayers (iii) and (iv) of the Motion; only adoption of the assessment and issuance of the decree with interest were ordered
Costs
The applicant to have 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 compensation due under the Work Injury Benefits Act is circumscribed under the Act and the award cannot by the stretch of imagination be categorised as final dues.
The Respondent did not make an Objection within the prescribed 60 days after notification of the award through email/online platform and it cannot feign ignorance that an award had been made.
That the Honourable Court hereby adopts the assessment of the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services dated 28 September 2022.
That a decree for Kshs 14,599,469/- to issue in accordance with the assessment of the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services against the Respondent together with interest from the date the award was granted.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the accident occurred on 19 September 2022 in the Motion grounds but the Managing Director's affidavit is said to admit the applicant informed him on 19 September 2021
The assessment figure is stated as Kshs 14,599,468/- in the grounds but Kshs 14,599,469/- in the relief sought and in the final orders
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lusaka v Lachlan Kenya Ltd (Miscellaneous Application E265 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 794 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Motion dated 10 November 2023 (claim filed 15 November 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/794/eng@2025-03-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.