Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedMiscellaneous Application No. E428 of 2025· [2026] KEELRC 2784 (KLR)

Lizzie Wanjiku Mwangi v Kenya Power and Lighting Company Limited

Employment and Labour Relations Court
8 October 2026
BMB. O. M. Manani
1,176 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya Power must pay a former employee Ksh. 3.9 million after failing to properly oppose a workplace injury award adopted as a court judgment.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, a former employee of the Respondent, moved the ELRC at Nairobi by a notice of motion dated 4th November 2025 seeking adoption as a judgment of the court of an award of Ksh. 3,930,734.50 made by the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services on 13th November 2024 in respect of an injury she sustained on duty on 17th October 2024, together with interest and costs. She averred the Respondent was notified of the award, failed to pay within 90 days, and lodged neither an objection nor an appeal. The claim was initially also brought against Old Mutual Insurance Company Ltd, which filed a replying affidavit, but the Applicant later withdrew the claim against it. The Respondent filed no replying affidavit, grounds of opposition or preliminary objection, only submissions purporting to rely on Old Mutual's affidavit and challenging the legality, proportionality and quantum of the award. The court held that under Rules 48 and 51 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024 a respondent may oppose only by replying affidavit, grounds of opposition or preliminary objection, and that distinct parties cannot rely on each other's affidavits; the Respondent therefore had not opposed the application. Following Charles v Cheto [2025] KECA 784 (KLR), the court held its role in adoption proceedings is limited to adopting the award and cannot reopen its merits; quantum and legality complaints belonged in objection or appeal under sections 51 and 52 of the Work Injury Benefits Act. The application was allowed, the award adopted as judgment, decree issued for Ksh. 3,930,734.50 with interest at court rates from 13th November 2024, and the Applicant awarded costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondent opposed the application in law

Holding

The Respondent did not oppose the application, having filed no replying affidavit, grounds of opposition or preliminary objection, and could not rely on Old Mutual's affidavit.

Reasoning

Rule 48 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024 prescribes the manner of opposing an application: a replying affidavit, grounds of opposition or preliminary objection. Rule 51 permits submissions only by a party who has so opposed. The Respondent filed none of these and, being a distinct party from Old Mutual, could not adopt its affidavit. It therefore essentially did not oppose the motion.

p. 4
02

Whether the court may examine the merits of the Director's award on adoption

Holding

No; the court's role in adoption proceedings is limited to adopting the award, and merits-based challenges belong in objection or appeal under sections 51 and 52 of WIBA.

Reasoning

Following Charles v Cheto [2025] KECA 784 (KLR), the Court of Appeal held that the ELRC's role at adoption stage is limited to adopting the award as rendered and it cannot reopen the award for merits. The Respondent's complaints on legality, proportionality and quantum should have been pursued through objection proceedings or an appeal under sections 51 and 52 of the Work Injury Benefits Act.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • In adoption proceedings the ELRC's role is limited to adopting the award as rendered; it has no mandate to reopen the award to consider its merits.
  • A respondent may only oppose an application by filing a replying affidavit, grounds of opposition or a preliminary objection; submissions alone are improper.
  • A party cannot rely on another (withdrawn) party's affidavit; each party bears individual responsibility to file its own response.
  • Challenges to a WIBA Director's award must be raised through objection proceedings or appeal under sections 51 and 52 of WIBA, not in adoption proceedings.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 4th November 2025 is allowed and the award by the Director dated 13th November 2024 is adopted as a judgment of the court
  2. 2.A decree is issued in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent for Ksh. 3,930,734.50 in terms of the award
  3. 3.The award attracts interest at court rates from 13th November 2024
  4. 4.The Applicant is awarded costs of the application
Jurisdiction invoked
Adoption of a Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services award under the Work Injury Benefits Act; Employment and Labour Relations (Procedure) Rules, 2024

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Lizzie Wanjiku Mwangi v Kenya Power and Lighting Company Limited", Case Analysis (2026). Miscellaneous Application No. E428 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2784/eng@2026-10-08

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