[2024] KEELRC 2062 (KLR)
The court held that since an objection to the Director's decision has already been lodged and the allegations of falsification fall within the scope of section 54 of the Work Injury Benefits Act, it is in the interests of justice to stay the enforcement proceedings to allow the Director to determine the objection....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELRC 2062 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kim Jackson Daniel Lusaka; Respondent: Lachlan Kenya Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Cause E265 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings
- Outcome
- Application for stay of proceedings granted.
- Judges
- Nzioki wa Makau
- Legal Topics
- Work Injury Benefits, Enforcement of Director Award, Stay of Proceedings, Jurisdiction of Director, Objection Procedure, False Claims
- 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
Kim Jackson Daniel Lusaka
Applicant
Lachlan Kenya Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the proceedings to enforce the Director's award under the Work Injury Benefits Act should be stayed pending determination of an objection before the Director.
- 2 Whether the Director is functus officio after issuing an award under the Work Injury Benefits Act.
- 3 Whether allegations of falsification of material aspects of a work injury claim fall within the purview of section 54 of the Work Injury Benefits Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since an objection to the Director's decision has already been lodged and the allegations of falsification fall within the scope of section 54 of the Work Injury Benefits Act, it is in the interests of justice to stay the enforcement proceedings to allow the Director to determine the objection. The court found no time limit for the Director or the court to address such allegations under section 54. The stay is necessary to permit the proper ventilation of the objection before the Director, after which the court may intervene if required. The Director is not functus officio in respect of the objection process, and the enforcement proceedings should be paused until the...
Court Disposition
Application for stay of proceedings granted.
Orders
- Stay of proceedings granted to permit the objection to be dealt with by the Director of Occupational Safety and Health.
- Parties at liberty to apply.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
Lusaka v Lachlan Kenya Limited (Miscellaneous Cause E265 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2062 (KLR) (18 July 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELRC 2062 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Miscellaneous Cause E265 of 2023
Nzioki wa Makau, J
July 18, 2024
Between
Kim Jackson Daniel Lusaka
Applicant
and
Lachlan Kenya Limited
Respondent
Ruling
1. The dispute herein relates to an alleged work injury. The Applicant filed the Miscellaneous Cause on 10th November 2023 seeking to enforce the decision of the Director of Occupational Safety and Health consequent to the claim made to him by the Applicant. The application before me is the one dated 7th May 2024 by the Respondent. The application seeks to stay the proceedings filed herein. The application is supported by the affidavit of Mr. Donald Mavividze. It is asserted that the claim before the Director was mischievous as the Applicant is alleged not to have suffered the injuries at the workplace.
2. The Applicant in his reply is opposed to stay and asserts that the office of Director is now functus officio having discharged his responsibility by granting the award he did which is subject of the enforcement. The Applicant asserts the motion by the Respondent is not for grant.
3. The matter is novel as this is the first time I am coming across a stay application pending a referral to the Director of Occupational Safety and Health. The Work Injury Benefits Act 2007 has been the punching bag when it comes to work injury matters. Under section 51(1) of the Act, any person aggrieved by a decision of the Director on any matter under the Act may within sixty days of such decision, lodge an objection with the Director against such decision. The manner of making the objection is prescribed to be in writing. This provision sets a time limit to make any objection prescribing sixty days. Further in the Act at section 54, there is provision that any person who in connection with a claim for compensation under the Act makes or causes to be made any statement which is false in any material respect, knowing it to be false, commits an offence. The action asserted to be subject of the challenge is alleged to be falsification of material aspects of the claim. This places the allegations made within the purview of section 54. In my considered view, there is no time limit prescribed for when this action can be taken by the Director or a Court enforcing the provisions of WIBA. As the challenge has already been lodged before the Director, it is in the interests of justice that the objection be dealt with by the Director after which there can be intervention by this Court should the parties be minded to raise it before court. The Court therefore grants a stay of proceedings herein to permit the ventilation of the objection before the Director. Parties be at liberty to apply. Costs of the motion will abide the outcome in the Miscellaneous Cause.It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 18TH DAY OF JULY 2024NZIOKI WA MAKAUJUDGE