Janet Awuor Suro & Naomi Adhiambo (Suing as the Personal Representatives of the Estate of Kennedy Juma Ongaro (Deceased)) v Vigilmax Security Company Limited
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed employers must pay workplace injury awards in full, even when their insurer underpays the claim.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Court should adopt the DOSH award without taking into account the substantial payment already made
- 2.Whether the Respondent should be condemned to satisfy the alleged outstanding balance notwithstanding the undisputed role of its insurer in the payment
- 3.Whether the Applicants are entitled to interest at 14% from 15th March 2023
- 4.Who should bear the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction to adopt DOSH awards
The ELRC has jurisdiction to adopt and enforce DOSH awards under Rules 69 and 73(3) and (4) of the ELRC Procedure Rules, 2024
The Applicants relied on Osino v China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation (K) Ltd, where the Court held the ELRC has jurisdiction to enforce DOSH awards. The Respondent conceded jurisdiction. The application was properly brought under Rules 69 and 73(3) and (4) permitting adoption of administrative decisions after expiry of the appeal/review period.
Effect of insurer's role on employer's liability
The employer remains liable for the outstanding balance; its dispute with its insurer is irrelevant to the applicants' claim
The Respondent argued the shortfall was caused by its insurer's failure to implement an instruction to enhance cover. The Court held that the employer's obligation to satisfy WIBA awards is non-delegable and it cannot hide behind its insurer for non-payment. The insurer dispute is a separate matter between the Respondent and its insurer.
Interest
Interest awarded at court rates from the date of judgment, not 14% from the DOSH assessment date
The Respondent relied on section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act, submitting interest is discretionary and should be exercised judiciously, noting WIBA prescribes no interest and the DOSH award contains no interest direction. The Court exercised discretion in favour of court rates from judgment.
Legal principles established
#- The ELRC has jurisdiction to adopt and enforce DOSH awards
- It is the employer's obligation to satisfy WIBA awards and it cannot hide behind its insurer for failure to pay
Court orders
#- 1.The award of the Director of Occupational Health and Safety made on 15th March 2023 is adopted as the judgment of the Court
- 2.Judgment entered for Kshs. 549,032/- against the Respondent
- 3.Interest at court rates on Kshs. 549,032/- from the date of judgment till payment in full
- 4.Costs of the application granted to the Applicants
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Procedure Rules, 2024, Rules 69 and 73(3) and (4) - jurisdiction to adopt and enforce DOSH awards
Relief refused
#Interest at 14% from 15th March 2023 as sought
Court awarded interest at court rates from the date of judgment instead of the claimed 14% from the DOSH assessment date
Costs
Costs of the application granted to the Applicants
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
It is the obligation of the employer to satisfy WIBA awards and it cannot hide behind its insurer for the failure to pay the amount due.
Consequently, the Court will grant the motion with costs to the Applicants. There will be interest at court rates on the sum outstanding which is Kshs. Kshs. 549,032/- from the date of judgment till payment in full.
the Employment and Labour Relations Court has the requisite jurisdiction to enforce DOSH awards
Issues in the judgment
#Delivery venue inconsistent with court of filing
Header misspells 'Miscellaneous'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Janet Awuor Suro & Naomi Adhiambo (Suing as the Personal Representatives of the Estate of Kennedy Juma Ongaro (Deceased)) v Vigilmax Security Company Limited", Case Analysis (2026). Miscellaneous Application No. E028 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2622/eng@2026-09-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.