[2021] KEHC 602 (KLR)
The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the applications because the underlying claim arose under the Work Injury Benefits Act (WIBA), and it is settled law that such claims fall outside the High Court's jurisdiction. The court noted that this position had been clearly articulated in a prior...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 602 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Godfrey Silibwa; Appellant: West Kenya Sugar Co. Limited; Respondent: Timothy Ageno Kiyesi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 136 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Applications for Stay
- Outcome
- applications dismissed with costs
- Judges
- BA Mitullah
- Legal Topics
- Workplace Injury, Wiba Jurisdiction, Court Jurisdiction, Appeal Dismissal
- 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 Silibwa
Appellant
West Kenya Sugar Co. Limited
Appellant
Timothy Ageno Kiyesi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Applications for Stay
Legal Issues
- 1 Does the High Court have jurisdiction to hear and determine claims arising under the Work Injury Benefits Act (WIBA)?
- 2 Should the applications for stay be granted in light of previous decisions on jurisdiction?
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the applications because the underlying claim arose under the Work Injury Benefits Act (WIBA), and it is settled law that such claims fall outside the High Court's jurisdiction. The court noted that this position had been clearly articulated in a prior reasoned judgment by Hon. Mr. Justice Musyoka, which the applicants and their legal advisors had ignored. As a result, the applications for stay were dismissed with costs, as entertaining them would contravene established legal principles and amount to a disregard of the court's previous determinations.
Court Disposition
applications dismissed with costs
Orders
- The applications for stay are dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 136 OF 2018
GODFREY SILIBWA..................................................................... 1ST APPELLANT
WEST KENYA SUGAR CO. LIMITED.......................................2ND APPELLANT
VERSUS
TIMOTHY AGENO KIYESI..............................................................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G A N D O R D E R
1. This is one of a series of suits regarding the same accident/incident. It is in respect of claims for an injury at work. In short it is a WIBA claim. It is settled law that the High Court has no jurisdiction to deal with WIBA claims. The approach taken has been either to transfer an appeal or dismiss it. Each Judge has made a decision based on the facts before him/her.
2. In this case and the other associated cases, Hon. Mr. Justice Musyoka did not summarily dismiss the cases. Instead he went to the trouble of delivering a reasoned judgment explaining why he had no jurisdiction.
3. It is clear from the several applications – seeking a stay that the Applicant and/or its Legal Advisors have not paid an iota of attention to those decisions.
4. These Applications fly in the face of that decision in a way that borders on contempt.
5. In the circumstances this Court has no option but to dismiss the applications with costs.
Order accordingly,
FARAH S. M. AMIN
JUDGE
SIGNED, AND DELIVERED IN KAKAMEGA THIS THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021.
In the Presence of
Court Assistant: Wasilwa
Appellant: Ms. Lukasile for Appellant on line using the teams platform
Respondent: Mr. Abok for the Respondents on line using the teams platform