Republic v Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services; Muhuru (Interested Party); Kel Chemicals Limited (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E024 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1274 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed that an employer's challenge to a workplace injury award failed, and the director acted lawfully in using doctors to resolve conflicting medical reports.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the ELLC to issue judicial review orders against WIBA decisions
The court held it has jurisdiction; the Director exercises a quasi-judicial function amenable to judicial review, and challenges are not confined to sections 51 and 52 of WIBA
The court reasoned that the Director performs quasi-judicial functions in processing work injury compensation, and such decisions may be challenged under sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act, the Fair Administrative Actions Act or Article 23 of the Constitution. The existence of the statutory appeal mechanism under sections 51 and 52 of WIBA does not oust the court's review jurisdiction.
Whether the Director acted ultra vires in constituting a medical advisory panel and revising the award
The Director acted within his statutory powers under sections 53(2) and 53(3) of WIBA; the panel members are officers assisting him and the appointment was reasonable and lawful
Section 53(2) obliges the Director to ensure injured employees are compensated in accordance with WIBA. Faced with conflicting medical assessments, the Director was not statutorily helpless; under section 53(3) he may be assisted by officers necessary for the administration of the Act, and members of the medical advisory panel fall within that description.
Whether the first medical assessment (Dr Githae) was final and conclusive
Dr Githae's report was not conclusive; it indicated NA against permanent incapacity and contemplated further examinations, with the initial award covering only temporary incapacity
The court found the applicant's assertion that the first report assessed 0% permanent incapacity deliberately misleading, since the doctor marked NA against permanent incapacity while assessing 66 days of temporary incapacity. The report anticipated further chest examination and radiograph before final assessment, and this explanation was not challenged.
Legal principles established
#- The ELRC has jurisdiction to grant certiorari and prohibition against the decisions of the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services, who exercises a quasi-judicial function, notwithstanding the appeal mechanism under WIBA
- Members of a medical advisory panel are officers assisting the Director under section 53(3) of the Work Injury Benefits Act, so the Director does not act in excess of authority in appointing doctors to reassess injuries
Court orders
#- 1.The Ex parte Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 29th September 2022 seeking certiorari and prohibition is dismissed
- 2.Costs awarded to the respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act, the Fair Administrative Actions Act and Article 23 of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services; Muhuru (Interested Party); Kel Chemicals Limited (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E024 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1274 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review Notice of Motion dated 29th September 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1274/eng@2025-04-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.