Republic v Directorate of Occupational Health and Safety Services & 2 others; H Young & Co (EA) Limited (Ex parte) (Judicial Review E011 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2905 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employer lost its bid to overturn a workplace injury award because it failed to report the accident and used the wrong legal route.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the judicial review application seeking prohibition and certiorari against the WIBA award was merited
The application was not merited and was dismissed; the applicant had an alternative statutory remedy of objection and appeal and came to court with unclean hands.
The court found the employer was aware of the injury (having referred the employee to a medical facility on 3rd July 2020) but failed to report the accident to the Director as required by section 22(1) WIBA, which is an offence. Because the employer breached its own statutory duty, the employee retained the right to report the accident at any time. The applicant's proper remedy against the Director's award was the objection procedure under section 51 and appeal under section 52 of WIBA, not judicial review. The suit was therefore misdesigned as a review rather than an appeal.
Whether the delay in reporting the claim defeated the award under section 26 WIBA
No; the employer's failure to report under section 22(1) excused the employee's delay.
The applicant argued the claim was filed four years after the injury contrary to section 26 WIBA's 12-month limitation. The court held the employer was aware of the injury from 3rd July 2020 yet failed to report it to the Director as required by section 22(1) WIBA, committing an offence. Since the employer failed to discharge its duty, the employee was entitled to report the accident at any time, neutralizing the limitation objection and the unclean-hands point weighed against the applicant.
Legal principles established
#- Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision
- An employer who fails to report a workplace accident under section 22(1) WIBA cannot rely on the employee's late reporting; the employee may report at any time
- A party dissatisfied with the Director's decision under WIBA must pursue the objection and appeal procedure under sections 51 and 52 rather than judicial review
Court orders
#- 1.The application by the Ex-parte Applicant is dismissed
- 2.Each party will bear its costs of this application
- 3.Orders accordingly
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court (orders of certiorari and prohibition)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Directorate of Occupational Health and Safety Services & 2 others; H Young & Co (EA) Limited (Ex parte) (Judicial Review E011 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2905 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Naivasha Miscellaneous Civil Application (as printed in the judgment; judicial review motion dated 25th November). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2905/eng@2025-10-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.