Bhachu Industries Limited v Ngui (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E225 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 3725 (KLR)

environment. In their witness statement, they aver that he was finished with protective gear and on injury he was treated at mama lucy hospital where an X-Ray was done beside stitching, cleaning and dressing as well. He was then referred to Likoni Road clinic for further dressing. 4. The Appellant further submits that during the hearing the trial court considered two medical reports brought out in evidence to illustrate the extent of the injury. The one dated 23rd November, 2016 indicated a soft tissue injury to the left middle finger. Only the tip area was afiected. The medical report dated 19th April, 2019 indicated that the said finger had already healed and a mere scar could hardly be seen on the middle finger. The Respondent even admitted that the Appellant had paid for all his medical treatment 5. The Appellant further afirms their evidence on the issuance of PPE materials in the form of gloves to the Respondent vide an issuance record dated 26th February 2016. The buttress this by relying on the authority of Kenya Akiba Micro Financing Ltd v Ezekiel Chebii & 14 others [2012] eKLR where the court delt with issues of momentary authenticity and admissibility. The court observed that question of authenticity go to the wait of the evidence rather than admissibility. It is therefore feasible to admit the evidence then move on to determine its credibility and weight. The Appellant in all faulted the award of kshs.502,000.00 to the Respondent in such circumstances. 6. The Respondent submits a case of injury borne out of negligence of BY Appellant. He reiterated his case on the circumstances of his injury and denied been a signatory to the documents produced by the appellant in support of issuance of PPE. He further faults the credibility of the evidence of DW1 who testified on behalf of the Appellant to the extend that he was not in the Appellant employee in 2016 and merely relied on records kept by the Appellant to authenticate the Respondent employment yet did not produce such record in court. The Respondent cites the authority of section 107, 109 and 70 of the Evidence Act chapter 80, Laws of Kenya to implant a case of the fiawed evidence of Appellant. This would not sustain this appeal. 7. The respondent cited various authorities including Mugambi and Silas vs Isaiah Gitiru, Civil appeal No. 130 of 2002 and China Road & Bridge Construction vs James Ponda in support of his claim that the trial court had made an appropriate award for general damages. 8. I agree with the Respondent’s case. The Appellant has not established any default in the award of damages by the trial court. The quantum agrees with established and authoritative decisions on the subject. In any event, the Appellant has through and through failed the test of controverting a case of negligence as set out by the Respondent. This is coupled with their uncorroborated case and evidence on the issue of PPEs. 9. I am therefore inclined to dismiss the appeal an order that each party bears their costs of the same. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED THIS 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025. D. K. NJAGI MARETE JUDGE Appearance: 1. Mr. Kori instructed by K. Mberia & Partners LLP for the Appellant. 2. Mr. Kamau instructed by Mwaura Kamau & Co. Advocates for the Respondent. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3725/eng@2025-11-19 2

page 2 of 2