[2017] KEHC 4749 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 4749 (KLR)

The appellate court found that the evidence did not support the trial court's finding of contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. The respondent's own witness confirmed the appellant's employment, the occurrence of the injury, and that the appellant was not intoxicated. The court held that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 4749 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Jared Oria Okech; Respondent: Kundan Singh Construction Co. Ltd.
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 111 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Judges
EM Muchoki
Legal Topics
Workplace Injury, Employer Liability, Contributory Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Tort Law Workplace Injury Employer Liability Contributory Negligence Breach of Statutory Duty

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jared Oria Okech

Appellant

Kundan Singh Construction Co. Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in apportioning liability for contributory negligence to the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent breached its statutory duty to provide a safe working environment for the appellant.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was entitled to full compensation for injuries sustained in the course of employment.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court found that the evidence did not support the trial court's finding of contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. The respondent's own witness confirmed the appellant's employment, the occurrence of the injury, and that the appellant was not intoxicated. The court held that the respondent failed in its duty to provide a safe method for moving heavy materials, exposing the appellant to foreseeable risk. The trial magistrate's apportionment of liability was therefore erroneous, and full liability was attributed to the respondent. The appellant was entitled to full compensation for his injuries, including general and special damages, costs, and interest.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Finding of contributory negligence set aside; respondent held 100% liable.
  • General damages of Kshs.400,000 awarded to the appellant.