[2024] KEELRC 1305 (KLR)

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2024] KEELRC 1305 (KLR)
Parties: Applicant: ASP Company Limited; Respondent: Director Occupational Health and Safety, Kajiado; Interested Party: Daniel Musembi
Court: Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station: Employment and Labour Relations Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction: Kenya
Case Number: Judicial Review Application E165 of 2024
Procedural Posture: Judicial Review Application / Judgment
Outcome: application dismissed
Judges: B Ongaya
Legal Topics: Work Injury Benefits, Judicial Review, Statutory Procedure, Administrative Decisions
Source Language: en

Employment and Labour Work Injury Benefits Judicial Review Statutory Procedure Administrative Decisions

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

ASP Company Limited

Applicant

Director Occupational Health and Safety, Kajiado

Respondent

Daniel Musembi

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the applicant was entitled to judicial review remedies against the respondent's decision requiring compensation for work injury.
2 Whether the applicant followed the prescribed statutory procedure under the Work Injury Benefits Act before approaching the court.
3 Whether the respondents performed their statutory duties in accordance with the law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the statutory procedure set out in the Work Injury Benefits Act by not appealing the Director's decision after the objection was rejected. Instead, the applicant improperly sought judicial review remedies. The court held that the statutory process must be followed and that judicial review is not a substitute for the appeal mechanism provided by law. The respondents had performed their statutory duties, and there was no basis for the orders sought. The proceedings were deemed an abuse of court process for want of compliance with the prescribed statutory procedure.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

The application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
The Deputy Registrar to return the case file to Machakos sub-registry forthwith.

Full Case Text

Judgment text and source record

25 paragraphs

ASP Company Limited v Director Occupational Health and Safety, Kajiado; Musembi (Interested Party) (Judicial Review Application E165 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 1305 (KLR) (29 May 2024) (Judgment)

Neutral citation: [2024] KEELRC 1305 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Machakos

Judicial Review Application E165 of 2024

B Ongaya, J

May 29, 2024

Between

ASP Company Limited

Exparte Applicant

and

Director Occupational Health and Safety, Kajiado

Respondent

and

Daniel Musembi

Interested Party

Judgment

1. The ex-parte applicant ASP Company Limited filed the notice of motion dated 19. 03. 2024 through RICAR Advocates LLP. It was under sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant prayed for:a.An order of certiorari be issued to quash the decision of the 1st respondent made on 25. 07. 2023 and re-emphasized by the 2nd respondent by letter dated 29. 01. 2024 that the applicant compensates the interested party Kshs. 1, 936, 886. 65 on account of 90% disablement.b.An order of mandamus compelling the 1st respondent to have the interested party undergo an independent medical examination to ascertain the degree of the injury.c.An order of mandamus to compel the respondent to conduct an inquiry as envisaged in the law.d.An order of prohibition restraining the interested party, the respondent, its agents, employees or any other person from enforcing the decision dated 25. 07. 2023 in WIBA/KJD/363/23.

2. The application is based on the material on record including the as filed at the leave stage and the supporting affidavit of Lilian Gitari, the respondent’s human resource manager sworn on 19. 03. 2024 and upon the following grounds:a.By the impugned letters the applicant is to pay the interested party Kshs. 1, 936, 886. 65 on account of 90% disablement.b.Prior to receipt of the letter the applicant was not aware of proceedings before the respondents.c.On 23. 10. 2023, the applicant lodged objection to the Director. On 06. 11. 2023, the Director replied upholding the decision. There was no further correspondence but on 12. 01. 2024 interested party made a telephone call for facilitation to go for a hearing on 15. 01. 2024. On 29. 01. 2024 the applicant was denied a right to be heard before the Work Injury Evaluation Committee Board because the objection had been lodged out of time.d.On 27. 11. 2023, the applicant was to appear before the Work Injury Evaluation Committee Board accompanied with a Doctor of own choice.

3. Despite service, the respondents and interested party did not enter appearance or file opposing affidavits or attend on hearing date. Counsel for the applicant made oral submissions.

4. Section 51 of the Work Injury Benefits Act, 2007 (WIBA) provides thus: “(1) Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Director on any matter under this Act, may within sixty days of such decision, lodge an objection with the Director an objection against such decision. (2) The objection shall be in writing in the prescribed form accompanied by particulars containing a concise statement of the circumstances in which the objection is made and the relief or order which the objector claims, or the question which he desires to have determined.”

5. Section 52 of the same WIBA provides, “(1) The Director shall within fourteen days after the receipt of an objection in the prescribed form, give a written answer to the objection, varying or upholding his decision and giving reasons for the decision objected to, and shall within the same period send a copy of the statement to any other person affected by the decision. (2) An objector may, within thirty days of the Director’s reply being received by him, appeal to the Industrial Court against such decision.”

6. The Court considers that the objection having been rejected, the legitimate path was for the applicant to appeal. The applicant instead filed the instant judicial review proceedings. The Court finds that the proceedings are an abuse of Court process for want of compliance with the prescribed statutory procedure. Further, the remedies prayed for must fail because the respondents appear to have performed their duty and roles per provisions of WIBA. As respondents never participated, there will be no orders on costs.

7. In conclusion, the application herein is dismissed with no costs and the Deputy Registrar to return the case file to Machakos sub-registry forthwith.

SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED BY VIDEO-LINK AND IN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS WEDNESDAY 29TH MAY 2024. BYRAM ONGAYAPRINCIPAL JUDGE

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.