Stecol Corporation v Wanjala (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E262 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 863 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employer lost its appeal and must pay a worker Kshs. 650,000 for injuries suffered because no safety gear was provided.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the magistrates' court over the work injury claim filed post-WIBA
The trial court was clothed with jurisdiction pursuant to the Chief Justice's Practice Directions of 24th April 2023, which apply to claims filed after commencement of WIBA but before the Supreme Court decision of 3rd December 2019
The Supreme Court in Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General upheld the constitutionality of WIBA sections 16, 23, 52 and 58(2) while preserving the legitimate expectation of claimants with pending cases to conclude them under the judicial process invoked. The CJ subsequently issued practice directions directing that claims filed post-WIBA but before that decision, pending in the Magistrates' Courts, proceed to conclusion there. The instant suit, filed 29th March 2018, was covered by those directions.
Liability at 100% against the appellant employer
The finding of 100% liability was proper because the respondent's evidence that he was not provided safety gear or a safe working environment was uncontroverted; the appellant called no witness
The claimant testified he slid and was injured while removing pipes as assigned, and that he was not provided boots or gloves, which was not challenged in cross-examination. The appellant pleaded contributory negligence but produced no evidence. Under section 6 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act the occupier must first ensure a safe workplace before the employee's duties under section 13 arise.
Quantum - general damages of Kshs. 650,000 and special damages of Kshs. 3,000
The award was proper and not an entirely erroneous estimate; comparable injuries to the respondent's grievous harm with 15% permanent disability justified the award
Applying Butt v Khan, the court found the award not inordinately high. The injuries - fracture of the right distal radius classified as grievous with 15% permanent incapacity - were more severe than those in Telkom v Owango (upheld at Kshs. 280,000 in 2012), and the trial court's decision was made 12 years later, with inflationary tendencies and comparable awards of Kshs. 700,000-800,000 in the cited authorities supporting the award.
Legal principles established
#- A first appellate court must reconsider and evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions, while making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses
- An appellate court will not disturb an award of damages unless it is so inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate
- An occupier must ensure a safe working environment before the employee's statutory duties under section 13 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act arise
- Work injury claims filed after commencement of WIBA but before the Supreme Court decision of 3rd December 2019, pending in the Magistrates' Courts, proceed to conclusion before those courts under the CJ's Practice Directions
Court orders
#- 1.The Judgment of the Honourable I. Orenge (SRM) delivered at Nairobi on the 1st March 2019 in Nairobi CMCC No. 3182 of 2018 is upheld
- 2.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the Respondent
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court, Nairobi
- Nairobi CMCC No. 3182 of 2018
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the magistrates' court; the trial court's jurisdiction over the post-WIBA pending work injury claim was sustained pursuant to the Chief Justice's Practice Directions of 24th April 2023 issued under Articles 159(2) and 161(2)(a) of the Constitution, section 10 of the Judicature Act and section 5(1) and 2(c) of the Judicial Service Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Stecol Corporation v Wanjala (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E262 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 863 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Nairobi CMCC No. 3182 of 2018 (Appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/863/eng@2025-03-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.