[2016] KEELRC 1768 (KLR)
Liability for the claimant's injuries was settled by consent at 80:20 in favour of the claimant, establishing that the respondent was primarily responsible for the workplace accident. The court's role was limited to assessing the quantum of damages. Considering the nature of the claimant's injuries—dislocation of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELRC 1768 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Kilonzo Mutunga; Respondent: Landmark Holdings Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 335 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- Claim partly allowed; damages awarded subject to contributory negligence.
- Judges
- HS Wasilwa
- Legal Topics
- Workplace Injury, Employer Liability, Negligence, Quantum of Damages
- 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
Kilonzo Mutunga
Claimant
Landmark Holdings Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent was liable for the claimant's injuries sustained at the workplace.
- 2 What quantum of damages is appropriate for the injuries suffered by the claimant.
Ratio Decidendi
Liability for the claimant's injuries was settled by consent at 80:20 in favour of the claimant, establishing that the respondent was primarily responsible for the workplace accident. The court's role was limited to assessing the quantum of damages. Considering the nature of the claimant's injuries—dislocation of the right knee joint, fracture of the right fibula bone, post traumatic arthritis, and deformity—the court referenced comparable awards in similar cases and determined that Kshs.600,000 was appropriate as general damages. After deducting 20% for contributory negligence, the net award was Kshs.480,000. Special damages were not awarded as they were not proved. The claimant was also...
Court Disposition
Claim partly allowed; damages awarded subject to contributory negligence.
Orders
- The claimant is awarded Kshs.480,000 as general damages for injuries sustained, after deduction for contributory negligence.
- Special damages are not awarded as they were not proved.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT ATNAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 335 OF 2015
(Before Hon. Lady Justice Hellen S. Wasilwa on 18th January 2016)
KILONZO MUTUNGA………………..……….…..…………CLAIMANT
VERSUS
LANDMARK HOLDINGS LIMITED …………………..…RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
1. The Claimant herein filed his Memorandum of claim on 13/3/2013 through the firm of Muttisya & Company Advocates. The Claimant’s case is that he was employed by the Respondent at its Kitui branch in Kwa-Vonza area earning a salary of 5,200/= per month.
2. It is also the Claimant’s case that there was an implied term of the employment contract between himself and the Respondent that, the Respondent would take all precautions for Safety of the Claimant while on duty and not to expose the Claimant to risk, damage, injury which they knew or ought to have known and to provide a safe and proper system of working and effective supervision of the same.
3. The Claimant avers that on 5/9/2009 while on duty, he was instructed to fill a cracked wall which wall collapsed hence occasioning him serious injuries. The Claimant has thus filed this case claiming general damages for injuries sustained, special damages plus costs and interest. He avers that he suffered a dislocation of the right knee joint, fracture of the right fibula bone and post traumatic arthritis.
4. The Respondent filed their reply to the Claim on 6/12/2013 through the firm of Wangari Muchemi & Company Advocates. In their reply, they denied that the Claimant was in their employment or at all and that no accident occurred on 5. 9.2011 involving the Claimant.
5. They also denied all particulars of negligence, carelessness or breach of statutory duty and breach of terms of contract of employment attributed to it or its servants. They wholly denied the claim but only stated that if indeed the Claimant was injured, he was wholly to blame for failing to follow the laid down safety rules, regulations and procedures and failing to take precaution for his own safety. They asked this Court to dismiss this suit accordingly.
6. When this case came up for hearing however, the parties entered a consent on liability at 80:20 in favour of the Claimant. What remained for this Court is to assess the quantum of damage.
7. The parties have subsequently filed their submissions on quantum. From the records submitted in Court the injury suffered by the Claimant was dislocation of right knee joint, fracture of the right fibula bone, post traumatic arthritis and deformity of the lateral side of the right knew and excessive adduction of the right lateral side of the knee.
8. The Claimant submitted that the Claimant be awarded 850,000/= as damages for the injury sustained.
9. The Respondents didn’t file any submission on quantum however, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the Claimant and relying on the cases cited, I refer to Mbrose Micheni Kinyamu v Gilbert Bundi & Another (2012) eKLRandCarolyne Indasi Mwonyonyo v Kenya Bus Service Limited (2012) eKLR where the Claimants were awarded 450,000/= and 350,000/= for similar injuries. I award the Claimant herein Kshs.600,000/= as general damages less 20% = 480,000/=. Special damages though pleaded were not proved and so nothing is awarded on this limb. The Claimant is also awarded costs of this suit.
Read in open Court this 18th day of January, 2016.
HON. LADY JUSTICE HELLEN WASILWA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Odhiambo for Claimant
No appearance for Respondent