Arunda v Attorney General & 2 others; Law Society of Kenya (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E090 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2999 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed a bid to declare workplace injury claim procedures unconstitutional, confirming WIBA claims can continue through the Director.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Res judicata
The petition is res judicata; all issues raised were conclusively determined by the Supreme Court in LSK v AG, Petition No. 4 of 2019
The Supreme Court had already upheld the constitutionality of the impugned WIBA provisions and affirmed the Director's quasi-judicial mandate. The petitioner merely recast discrimination arguments as natural justice arguments, but the substance was the same. Stare decisis binds this court, and Parliament's enactment of WIBA stems from ILO commitments cemented under Article 2(5) and (6) of the Constitution.
Quasi-judicial status of the Director
The Director of Work Injury Benefits is not a tribunal under Article 169 but performs a quasi-judicial function subject to High Court supervisory jurisdiction under Article 165(6)
Following the Supreme Court's holding, the Director's decisions, even without review or appeal, remain subject to the overriding authority of the High Court. Additionally, decisions are subject to objection to the Director within 60 days and appeal to the ELRC within 30 days under sections 51(1) and 52(2) of WIBA, so due process safeguards exist.
Natural justice and the WIBA procedure
The WIBA procedure conforms to constitutional principles of natural justice; the reporting provisions do not offend Articles 25(c), 47 and 50(1)
Sections 21 and 22 merely establish a reporting framework and do not determine rights; section 22(5) preserves the employee's right to report directly to the Director at any stage. Read holistically, the provisions promote access to justice, expeditious resolution and procedural fairness, balancing administrative efficiency with legal accountability.
Legal principles established
#- The ELRC has jurisdiction to determine the constitutional validity of a statute in matters of employment and labour
- Decisions of the Supreme Court bind all other courts
- The Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services performs a quasi-judicial function subject to the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 165(6)
- The doctrine of res judicata bars a court from reopening matters already settled with finality by a superior court of record
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22(1), 23(1) and 165(3)(d)(1) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 (ELRC jurisdiction to determine constitutional validity of statutes in employment and labour matters, per Supreme Court in Kenya Tea Owners Association)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Arunda v Attorney General & 2 others; Law Society of Kenya (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E090 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2999 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (constitutional petition concerning the Work Injuries Benefits Act, Cap 236). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2999/eng@2025-10-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.