Kikuvi v Kenyatta National Hospital & another
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed that work injury compensation claims must be made against the employer, not the insurance company.
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 Amended Statement of Claim dated 27th January 2026 discloses any reasonable cause of action against the 2nd Respondent
Key legal issues
#Whether the claim discloses a reasonable cause of action against the insurer (2nd Respondent)
It does not; the claim against the insurer was struck out under Order 2 Rule 15(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
The court applied Order 2 Rule 15 and the DT Dobie test of a reasonable cause of action, considering only the pleading. Section 10 of WIBA places liability to compensate an employee on the employer alone. The claimant was employed by the 1st Respondent, not the insurer, so no remedy under WIBA can lie against the insurer. Section 7's insurance duty does not transfer liability to the insurer beyond the contractual cover.
Legal principles established
#- Liability to compensate an employee under WIBA lies on the employer; an insurer is not liable to the employee under Section 10 of WIBA
- Section 7 WIBA's mandatory insurance duty does not transfer liability from employer to insurer; it only eases the employer's burden to the extent agreed in the insurance contract
- Where no remedy has been sought or can lie against a party, no reasonable cause of action lies against that party and it ought to be struck out
Court orders
#- 1.Struck out the entire claim against the 2nd Respondent (AAR Insurance Kenya Limited) with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over transferred employment cause (suit transferred from the High Court on 19th March 2024)
Relief refused
#Claimant's claim against the 2nd Respondent for payment of Kshs. 22,394,272 under WIBA
The 2nd Respondent was not the claimant's employer; no remedy can be sought or enforced against it under Section 10 of WIBA
Costs
Claim against the 2nd Respondent struck out with costs (costs to the 2nd Respondent)
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.
I have found that the Amended Statement of Claim does not disclose a reasonable cause of action against the 2nd Respondent and consequently, I strike out the entire claim against the 2nd Respondent with costs.
A cause of action is simply a factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person.
I think a reasonable cause of action means a cause of action with some chance of success when (as required by paragraph (2) of the rule) only the allegations in the plaint are considered.
The foregoing provisions of WIBA leave little doubt as to where liability to compensate an employee for injuries sustained in the course of employment lies.
Issues in the judgment
#Amended Statement of Claim dated same day as the striking-out application
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kikuvi v Kenyatta National Hospital & another", Case Analysis (2026). Cause 217 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2776/eng@2026-10-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.