Harrison Makau Muasya v DOSH
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court quashed a Kshs.691,670 workplace injury demand because DOSH never gave the employer a hearing and relied on a flawed form.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether failure to identify the business name 'Chef Chicken Javaris' on the award was fatal
Not fatal; the action belongs to the proprietor and the award vests in or against him
The court applied Order 30 of the Civil Procedure Rules and authorities holding that a person carrying on business in a name other than his own may be sued in that name, but the suit targets the proprietor using the business name. A business name is not a juristic person. The registration certificate established that the Applicant was the proprietor and the Interested Party's employer, so the misdescription lacked persuasion.
Whether the DOSH Form I was reliable
The Form lacked authenticity due to inconsistencies and omissions; the assessment resulting from it cannot stand
The court found two DOSH Forms I on record, incomplete and undated, with a page completed by one PRAS allegedly of Kenyatta National Hospital but stamped AMREF. The form was not authenticated by the Applicant, did not mention his business or workplace, and appeared copied from a form involving a different person. These inconsistencies made the assessment unsustainable.
Whether the motion for judicial review was merited
Merited; the Applicant was not heard before the DOSHS pronounced itself, among other procedural lapses
The Respondent did not respond to the application despite being accorded time. There was no evidence of service of the claim for compensation, no evidence that the Director made inquiries under section 23 WIBA, and no comprehensive medical report supporting the 23% permanent incapacity finding. Denial of the right to be heard vitiated the decision, warranting certiorari.
Legal principles established
#- A business name has no existence outside the proprietor; orders or awards made in the business name vest in or against the proprietor
- Denial of the opportunity to be heard vitiates any decision made by the decision maker
- Under section 23 of WIBA the Director must make such inquiries as are necessary to decide upon any claim or liability
Court orders
#- 1.An order of certiorari issued to remove into the court for purposes of quashing the decision and demand made by the Respondent on 8th April 2025 requiring payment of Kshs.691,670.76
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the ELRC; leave granted to institute judicial review proceedings operating as stay of execution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Harrison Makau Muasya v DOSH", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC JR No. E076 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2627/eng@2026-09-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.