Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNotice of Motion dated 1st November 2024· [2025] KEELRC 2472 (KLR)

Katana v Transpares(K)Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Miscellaneous E111 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2472 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
18 September 2025
OKOCHARO KEBIRA
1,527 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employer lost its chance to challenge a workplace injury award because it complained in court papers instead of using the legal appeal process.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, an employee of the Respondent, was injured in a workplace accident on 27th March 2021. He reported the accident to the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services, who initially assessed compensation at KShs. 935,713.13. Aggrieved, and relying on a medical report by Dr Wambua Kiema assessing his permanent incapacity at 35%, he objected under Section 51 of the Work Injury Benefits Act. The Director reviewed the award upwards to KShs. 1,765,993.53 by WIBA Form 4 dated 1st August 2024. The Respondent declined to settle. The Applicant moved the Court by Notice of Motion dated 1st November 2024 seeking adoption of the Director's assessment as a judgment of the Court and a decree for KShs. 1,765,933.54, plus costs of KShs. 200,000. The Respondent opposed, arguing the review was unilateral, unlawful and procedurally defective - no panel of doctors was convened, it was not served with the reassessment, and future medical expenses were improperly awarded. The court framed a sole issue: whether the application was merited. It held that grievances against the Director's decisions must be pursued under Sections 51 and 52 of WIBA or through judicial review; complaints in a replying affidavit are ineffective. The Respondent having done neither, the court adopted the Director's award as its judgment, directed a decree for KShs. 1,765,993.53, and awarded costs to the Applicant, to be agreed or taxed, refusing the fixed KShs. 200,000 sought.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondent's objections to the Director's reassessment could defeat the adoption application

Holding

No - the Respondent never followed the statutory route under sections 51 and 52 of WIBA or sought judicial review, so its complaints could not be entertained.

Reasoning

The court noted the Director performs administrative functions, so grievances against his decisions may be pursued either through the objection and appeal mechanism in sections 51 and 52 of WIBA or through judicial review. The Respondent did neither, confining its complaints to a replying affidavit, which gave the court no legal basis to interfere with or decline to adopt the Director's award.

p. 4
02

Whether the Director's award should be adopted as a judgment of the Court

Holding

Yes, and a decree issued for Kshs. 1,765,993.53.

Reasoning

Since the Respondent had not availed itself of the prescribed statutory challenge mechanisms, the unchallenged assessment of the Director stood. The court granted the application to the extent of adopting the award as its judgment and directing issuance of a decree in the assessed sum.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Complaints against a Director's decision under WIBA must be raised through the prescribed statutory objection/appeal procedure under sections 51 and 52, or via judicial review; they cannot be raised through a replying affidavit.
  • Where a party has not challenged the Director's decision in the prescribed manner, the Court has no legal basis to refuse adoption of the award.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Director's award is adopted as a judgment of this Court
  2. 2.A decree will be issued for the sum of Kshs. 1,765,993.53
  3. 3.Costs of the application awarded in favour of the Applicant, to be agreed by the parties; in default, to be taxed by the Taxing Officer of this Court
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 51 and 52 of the Work Injury Benefits Act (adoption of the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services' award)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Katana v Transpares(K)Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Miscellaneous E111 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2472 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 1st November 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2472/eng@2025-09-18

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