H Young & Company (EA) Limited v Momanyi (Appeal E014 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2481 (KLR)

The court noted the undisputed lacuna in the WIBA on enforcement of the Director's awards and applied the equitable maxim that equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy. It adopted the general position summarised in Joash Shisia Cheto, reproduced and applied by the Court of Appeal in Charles v Cheto, that magistrates' courts may adopt awards where pecuniary jurisdiction allows. The respondent's salary of Kshs. 53,836 and the award of Kshs. 812,509.48 fell within the magistrate's pecuniary jurisdiction, and the magistrate was exercising jurisdiction as gazetted by the Chief Justice.

The court reiterated that it will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by an inferior court unless satisfied the decision is clearly wrong, that the magistrate misdirected herself, acted on extraneous matters, or failed to consider relevant matters, arriving at a wrong conclusion. There being a valid DOSH award with no appeal filed within 90 days under section 52 of the WIBA, and the magistrate having applied a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal, the appeal failed.

Relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in Charles v Cheto, the court noted that the appellant had sat back and taken no steps to judicially review the Director's award even after becoming aware of it, and that its complaints about lack of notice and violation of fair hearing rights could only be raised on an appeal under section 52(2) of the WIBA or in judicial review proceedings brought before adoption of the award.