[2019] KEELRC 1399 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 1399 (KLR)

The appeal was dismissed because the Appellant, in his own evidence at trial, expressly exonerated the Respondent from blame for the workplace accident and injury. The court found that, regardless of the pleadings, the Appellant's oral testimony was clear and unambiguous in stating that the Respondent was not to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELRC 1399 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Daniel Okayo Odongo; Respondent: Cook N’ Lite Ltd
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 5 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judges
J Rika
Legal Topics
Workplace Injury, Employer Liability, Negligence, Burden of Proof
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Tort Law Workplace Injury Employer Liability Negligence Burden of Proof

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Okayo Odongo

Appellant

Cook N’ Lite Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent was negligent and liable for the Appellant's workplace injury.
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant established his case on a balance of probabilities.
  3. 3 Whether the Trial Court erred in its assessment of evidence and award of costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Appellant, in his own evidence at trial, expressly exonerated the Respondent from blame for the workplace accident and injury. The court found that, regardless of the pleadings, the Appellant's oral testimony was clear and unambiguous in stating that the Respondent was not to blame. As a result, there was no basis for finding negligence or liability against the Respondent. The court further held that submissions by counsel cannot substitute for evidence, and that the Trial Court was correct in relying on the Appellant's testimony. Without proof of negligence, no damages could be awarded, and the grounds of appeal lacked merit.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is rejected.
  • No order on the costs of the appeal.