[2018] KEELRC 2556 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 2556 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent established, on a balance of probabilities, that he was injured at his workplace as a result of the appellant's negligence. The evidence showed that the respondent was performing duties assigned to him when he was injured, and the appellants failed to provide protective gear or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 2556 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: John Mburu t/a B.P Highway Petrol Station; Appellant: Amos Omondi; Respondent: Wilson Jerem Ogolla
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Appeal 260 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judges
DKN Marete
Legal Topics
Workplace Injury, Employer Liability, Negligence, Scope of Employment
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Tort Law Workplace Injury Employer Liability Negligence Scope of Employment

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Mburu t/a B.P Highway Petrol Station

Appellant

Amos Omondi

Appellant

Wilson Jerem Ogolla

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was injured in the course of his employment with the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was negligent and liable for the respondent's injuries.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent acted outside the scope of his employment at the time of injury.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent established, on a balance of probabilities, that he was injured at his workplace as a result of the appellant's negligence. The evidence showed that the respondent was performing duties assigned to him when he was injured, and the appellants failed to provide protective gear or rebut the respondent's case. The argument that the respondent was acting outside the scope of his employment was rejected as splitting hairs and not a viable defence. The court held that the lower court's finding of 100% liability against the appellants was correct. The issue of quantum was deemed irrelevant due to the passage of time and inflation, and the court declined to...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs of the appeal.