Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedKajiado CMCC Appeal (Memorandum of Appeal dated 13th January 2025, arising from Kajiado CMCC Cause No. 142 of 2016)· [2025] KEELRC 3738 (KLR)

Nyamai v Imara Steel Mills (Appeal E016 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3738 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya (First Appellate Court, Nairobi)
17 December 2025
JKJ. W. Keli
2,798 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court upheld the dismissal of a workplace injury claim because the employer's statutory accident register outweighed the worker's uncorroborated testimony.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The appellant, dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of Hon. V.A. Kachuodho (M) delivered on 13th December 2024 in Kajiado CMCC Cause No. 142 of 2016 dismissing his workplace injury claim, appealed on liability and quantum, seeking to have that judgment set aside or varied. The claim arose from an alleged accident of 6th March 2013 in which the appellant, an employee of the respondent manufacturer, said he was injured when a metal bar fell on his right leg. The respondent denied the accident and produced its accident register showing no workplace accident on the alleged date. The appeal was canvassed by written submissions; only the appellant filed. Framing two issues on whether the trial magistrate applied the correct principles in dismissing the suit and in assessing damages, the court, as the first appellate court, restated its duty to re-evaluate the evidence and reach its own conclusion. It upheld the trial court's finding on liability: the authenticity of the statutory injury register was unchallenged, the appellant's oral testimony was uncorroborated, his account contained date inconsistencies, and he attended a clinic other than the employer-designated facility; the register therefore outranked his uncorroborated testimony. Having upheld the finding of no proved liability and doubted the treatment notes, the court declined to address quantum as superfluous. The appeal was dismissed and the judgment below upheld, with no order as to costs because the respondent did not file submissions. Judgment was delivered in open court at Nairobi on 17th December 2025 by J. W. Keli, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the appellant proved liability for the workplace injury on a balance of probabilities

Holding

The trial court's finding that the appellant had not proved his case was upheld; the employer's statutory injury register showed no accident on the alleged date, and the claimant's account was inconsistent and uncorroborated.

Reasoning

The appellant claimed injury at work on 6th March 2013, producing a demand letter, treatment note, job card and receipts, all denied by the respondent. The respondent produced the statutory accident register showing no accident. The appellant's account contained date inconsistencies, he attended a clinic other than the designated one, and no witness corroborated him. Given the register's statutory status under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the court upheld the trial magistrate's dismissal.

p. 5
02

Whether the appellate court should assess damages

Holding

The quantum issue was not determined because liability failed.

Reasoning

Since the court upheld the trial court's finding of lack of proof of liability and had doubted the authenticity of the medical treatment notes, it considered a determination on quantum of damages unnecessary and a waste of judicial time. The appeal on quantum therefore fell with the appeal on liability.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • A first appellate court must revisit, evaluate and draw its own conclusions from the evidence on record.
  • A statutorily required injury register, whose authenticity is unchallenged, outweighs uncorroborated oral testimony of the claimant.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed as lacking merit
  2. 2.The Judgment and Decree of the Hon. V.A. Kachuodho (M) delivered on 13th December 2024 in Kajiado CMCC Cause No. 142 of 2016 is upheld
  3. 3.No order as to costs, as the respondent did not file response submissions

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Evidence Act, Cap 80 Laws of KenyaSection 107(1)
  • Occupational Safety and Health ActSection 21(5)
  • Occupational Safety and Health ActSection 122

Cases cited (6)

  • Selle & Another v Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd & Others
    [1968] EA 123
  • William Kabogo Gitau v. George Thuo & 2 Others
    [2010] 1 KLR 526
  • Mwanyule v Said T/A Jomvu Total Service Station
    [2004] 1 KLR 47
  • Mogaka Sydney t/a Kenya Bus Services v Faith Ndunge Nyundo
    [2018] Civil Appeal 20 of 2017
  • Catherine Wanjiku Kingori & Another v Gibson Theuri Gichubi
    Civil Suit No. 320 of 1998
  • Amal Hauliers Limited v Abdulnasir Abubakar Hassan
    [2018] Civil Appeal 18 of 2017
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court, Kajiado
CMCC Cause No. 142 of 2016
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate court reviewing the subordinate court's judgment (appeal by way of retrial on evidence)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nyamai v Imara Steel Mills (Appeal E016 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3738 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kajiado CMCC Appeal (Memorandum of Appeal dated 13th January 2025, arising from Kajiado CMCC Cause No. 142 of 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3738/eng@2025-12-17

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