[2000] KEHC 128 (KLR)
The court found that the defendant had provided reasonable security measures by employing guards and installing steel doors. The robbers overpowered the guards, and there was no evidence that the supervisor or the plaintiff could have foreseen or prevented the attack. The court held that the employer was not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] KEHC 128 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Martin Awoche Okoth; Defendant: Rasco Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 4516 of 1990
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- suit dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Employer Liability, Duty of Care, Workplace Injury
- 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
Martin Awoche Okoth
Plaintiff
Rasco Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant employer was negligent in failing to provide adequate security measures to protect the plaintiff from robbery while at work.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff contributed to his own injuries by leaving the office door open or otherwise failing to follow instructions.
- 3 Whether the defendant had fulfilled its duty of care to the plaintiff as an employee.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendant had provided reasonable security measures by employing guards and installing steel doors. The robbers overpowered the guards, and there was no evidence that the supervisor or the plaintiff could have foreseen or prevented the attack. The court held that the employer was not negligent, as the security measures in place were adequate and the attack was a professional hazard inherent in the plaintiff's job. The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant breached its duty of care or that any act or omission by the defendant caused the injuries. Consequently, the suit was dismissed.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed
Orders
- The suit is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE NO. 4516 OF 1990
MARTIN AWOCHE OKOTH..........................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
RASCO LIMITED.........................................................DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
Evidence
The plaintiff’s case is that he was attacked by some robbers when he was on duty. He was an accounts clerk employed by the defendant. The attack took place on 17. 12. 87 at about 7. 30 p.m. The robbers after they had immobilized the guards at the main entrance entered into his office when he opened the door for the supervisor Hesborn Aura who had requested him to open the door. The supervisor told him he wanted to verify some discrepancies in the accounts of the vendors with the records which were in his office. The vendors used to enter the office before this incident if there was need. The robbers beat him demanding the keys and money and caused him injuries. On cross examination he said that the supervisors were allowed to come to his office and that the instructions not to allow them into his office were issued after this incident in the letter of 22. 12. 87.
There was no circular or instructions forbidding the vendors to come into his office.
The defendant did not call any evidence but judging from the line of questioning of the plaintiff and from the defence filed the defence is that:
(1) The plaintiff was negligent in that he left the doors to his office open.
2) The defendant was not negligent in that he had employed guards at the main entrance and provided steel doors. 3) The defendant was under instructions to keep his doors to his office locked all the time.
4) There was no breach of duty by the defendant.
5) The plaintiff had been fully compensated in another case HCCC No.1664 of 1988.
2. FINDINGS
From the facts as related by the plaintiff in his evidence it appears that the robbers had tied up the guards in the main entrance and had gained entry into the compound leading to the office of the plaintiff. There is no evidence that the supervisor was aware of the presence of the robbers when he asked the plaintiff to open for him. The plaintiff said that the robbers had tied up the guards. It is correct to state that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff as an employee while at work. Such a duty of care with regard to attacks by robbers would refer to the provisions of guards and secure doors. These seem to have been provided by the employer inform of the guards. If the guards were overpowered I do not think this can be termed as being negligence on the part of the employer. The manner in which the supervisor was forced into the plaintiff office cannot be said to amount to negligence on the part of the employer as the supervisor was not aware of the presence of the robbers within the compound. There was an attempt by the defence through the letter of 22. 12. 87 to assert that there existed instructions to the plaintiff not to allow the vendors or any body else into his office. This was denied by the plaintiff who explained that this letter with instructions was written after the accident.
On this issue I believe the plaintiff and I find that this letter was written after the robbery. The main issue in this case is whether the defendant was negligent to the extend he can be held liable for the attack to the plaintiff by the robbers. It is common grounds that there was robbery and the plaintiff was attacked and received injuries but for the plaintiff to succeed against the defendant he would need to show that the defendant had not provided any safety measures against entry into the premises by robbers and that the plaintiff was totally exposed to such dangers. The defendant having provided the guards and steel doors would appear to meet what it was supposed to do under these circumstances. By the time the supervisor asked the plaintiff to open the door the robbers had already entered into the compound. The attack could not therefore be attributed to the lack of adequate necessary provisions against robberies. This attack would appear to have been part of the professional hazard in this kind of job the plaintiff undertook to do for the employer , the defendant.
I therefore find that the defendant had by providing guards and steel doors provided what was practically adequate security measures. The employer was not therefore negligent.
3. Judgment
Having found that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant, I would
dismiss the suit with no order as to costs.
Delivered and dated at Nairobi this 8th day of February, 2000.
KASANGA MULWA
JUDGE