REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAKURU PETITION NO. E015 Of 2026 BETWEEN JOSEPH KAMAU NDUNG’U .................................................................PETITIONER VERSUS 1. DIRECTORATE OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY 2. JAMES MWANGI GIKONYO ......................................................RESPONDENTS RULING 1. Joseph Kamau Ndung’u, the Petitioner herein, seeks through the Petition, substantive orders of certiorari, quashing the work injury award dated 11th November 2024, granted by the 1st Respondent to the 2nd Respondent. 2. He also prays the Court to nullify the proceedings leading to the award; declaration that his fundamental rights under Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution have been violated; and general damages for subjecting the Petitioner to a claim that was bad in law. 3. In an application dated 26th February 2026, the Petitioner seeks orders stopping enforcement of the 1st Respondent’s award, in Nyahururu 1
page 1 of 3
E&LRC Miscellaneous Application No. E001 of 2026, James Mwangi Gikonyo v. Joseph Kamau Ndung’u. 4. The Petitioner states that he filed Nakuru E&LRC Miscellaneous Application E055 of 2025 against the Respondents for leave to file objection to the Director’s award. 5. Leave was granted, and enforcement of the award stayed. The Court Finds: - 6. No useful purpose is served by this Petition, in light of other proceedings, relating to the award of the Director, initiated by the Parties. 7. The Petitioner states that leave to object to the award has been granted. Enforcement of the award has been stayed. Why is it necessary to pray the Court, to issue an order of certiorari, quashing the same award that has been stayed, and is subject to objection proceedings? Why should any Party to litigation be compelled to pay general damages for subjecting the other, to a Claim that is said to be, ‘’bad in law?’’ 8. The Petition is, in the respectful view of the Court, completely unnecessary, a diversionary manoeuvre, and an attack on judicial economy. The statutory mechanisms for challenge and enforcement of awards under Sections 51 and 52 of the Work Injury Benefits Act, are available to the Parties, and have indeed been invoked by the Parties. 2
page 2 of 3
9. There is no reason to invoke the Constitution, where statutory processes are at play, and statutory remedies are available. IT IS ORDERED: - a. The Petition is struck out with no order on the costs. b. Parties to pursue challenge, and/or enforcement, of the award through the established statutory provisions. c. The file is closed. Dated, signed and delivered electronically at Nakuru, under Rule 68[5] of the E&LRC [Procedure] Rules, 2024, this 30th day of July 2026. James Rika Judge 3
page 3 of 3