https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1769
The court held that its jurisdiction was confined to adopting the Director’s award and that the 1st Respondent’s complaints about lack of notice and alleged error in assessment could not be ventilated in this miscellaneous application; the proper course was judicial review if the statutory appeal route was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEELRC 1769 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: GODFREY IMBAYI; 1st Respondent: UZURI FOODS LTD; 2nd Respondent: DIRECTOR OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY SERVICES
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application E360 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Miscellaneous Application for Adoption of a Director’s Award Under the Work Injury Benefits Act / Ruling on Application Dated 16th September 2025
- Outcome
- Application allowed
- Judges
- ["BOM Manani"]
- Legal Topics
- Adoption of Award as Judgment, Work Injury Benefits Act Section 52 Appeal Process, Notice of Award to Employer, Right to Be Heard, Interest on Compensation Award, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
GODFREY IMBAYI
Applicant
UZURI FOODS LTD
1st Respondent
DIRECTOR OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY SERVICES
2nd Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment and Labour Relations Court Miscellaneous Application for Adoption of a Director’s Award Under the Work Injury Benefits Act / Ruling on Application Dated 16th September 2025
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should enter judgment in terms of the Director’s award
- 2 Whether the 1st Respondent’s alleged lack of notice barred adoption of the award
- 3 Whether objections to the award could properly be raised in this miscellaneous application
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that its jurisdiction was confined to adopting the Director’s award and that the 1st Respondent’s complaints about lack of notice and alleged error in assessment could not be ventilated in this miscellaneous application; the proper course was judicial review if the statutory appeal route was unavailable. On the facts, the court was also not persuaded that the 1st Respondent lacked notice because the award reflected its postal address. The application was therefore allowed and judgment entered for the Applicant in the amount assessed.
Court Disposition
Application allowed
Orders
- Judgment entered for the Applicant against the 1st Respondent for Ksh. 710,481.00 in terms of the Director’s award dated 13th June 2025
- The award sum attracts interest at court rates from the date of the award
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI** **MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E360 OF 2025** **GODFREY IMBAYI……………...……………………….………APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **UZURI FOODS LTD……………………………………....1ST RESPONDENT** **DIRECTOR OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY SERVICES……………………………………………….....2ND RESPONDENT** **RULING** **Background** 1. The Applicant has filed the instant application dated 16th September 2025 seeking the following orders:- 2. That the court adopts the award by the 2nd Respondent which was rendered on 13th June 2025 as a judgment of the court. 3. That judgment be entered against the 1st Respondent for the amount of Ksh. 710,481.00 as per the award. 4. That the court awards the Applicant interest on the aforesaid amount from the date of assessment until payment in full. 5. That the 1st Respondent pays costs of the application. 6. That the court grants any other relief which it deems just and fit to grant. 7. The application is based on the grounds which appear on the face thereof. It is further supported by the affidavit of the Applicant. 8. The Applicant avers that he suffered injury on 6th September 2023 whilst in the employment of the 1st Respondent. He contends that the 2nd Respondent assessed compensation due to him on account of the injury at Ksh. 710,841.00. 9. The Applicant avers that although the 1st Respondent was notified of the award, it has refused to make good the payment. Hence the decision to file the instant application. 10. The 1st Respondent has opposed the application. It alleges that it was not notified of the award as required by law. As such, it contends that it was not able to object to it (the award). 11. The 1st Respondent asserts that the award is erroneous as the 2nd Respondent did not have regard for the 25% disability which was awarded by doctor Ruga. The 1st Respondent avers that had the award been brought to its attention, it would have objected to it on this account. 12. The 1st Respondent contends that the failure to notify it of the award infringed its right to be heard. As such, it asks the court not to condemn it unheard. **Analysis** 1. The only issue which the court is called upon to determine in the matter is whether judgment should be entered for the Applicant in terms of the award by the 2nd Respondent. It is now settled that in an application of this nature, the court’s role is limited to adopting the Director’s award. The court is not entitled to open an inquiry into matters such as those which the 1st Respondent wishes to ventilate. 2. If the 1st Respondent was locked out of the appeal process under section 52 of *the Work Injury Benefits Act* as it alleges, the avenue which was open to it was to apply for judicial review of the Director’s award. The option of challenging the award through this miscellaneous cause is not available (see ***Charles v Cheto [2025] KECA 784 (KLR)***). 3. That said, the court notes that the award bears the 1st Respondent’s postal address if the address in its (the 1st Respondent’s) accident report form attached to its (the 1st Respondent’s) replying affidavit is anything to go by. In the face of this, the court is unable to believe its (the 1st Respondent’s) assertion that it was not made aware of the award. **Determination** 1. The foregoing being the case, the court finds that the 1st Respondent’s resistance to the application dated 16th September 2025 is unmerited. As such, the court allows the application with the consequence that:- 2. Judgement is hereby entered for the Applicant against the 1st Respondent for Ksh. 710,481.00 in terms of the award by the 2nd Respondent dated 13th June 2025. 3. The aforesaid amount attracts interest at court rates from the date of the award. 4. The Applicant is awarded costs of the application. **Dated, signed and delivered on the 26th day of June, 2026** **B. O. M. MANANI** **JUDGE** In the presence of: …………….for the Applicant …………….for the 1st Respondent …………….for the 2nd Respondent **ORDER** **In light of the directions issued on 12th July 2022 by her Ladyship, the Chief Justice with respect to online court proceedings, this decision has been delivered to the parties online with their consent, the parties having waived compliance with Rule 28 (3) of the ELRC Procedure Rules which requires that all judgments and rulings shall be dated, signed and delivered in the open court.** **B. O. M MANANI**