[2023] KEELRC 370 (KLR)
The court held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain original claims under the Work Injury Benefits Act, as established by the Supreme Court in Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General & another [2019] eKLR. The claimant's argument that the director's inaction constitutes a decision appealable to the court was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELRC 370 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Philip Morendi Masira; Respondent: Acme Containers Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause E165 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- claim struck out for want of jurisdiction
- Judges
- L Ndolo
- Legal Topics
- Work Injury Benefits Act, Jurisdiction of Court, Preliminary Objection, Judicial Review Remedy
- 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
Philip Morendi Masira
Applicant
Acme Containers Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Employment and Labour Relations Court has jurisdiction to hear original claims under the Work Injury Benefits Act (WIBA).
- 2 Whether the inaction of the Director of Occupational Safety and Health constitutes a decision appealable to this court under section 52(2) of WIBA.
- 3 Whether the claimant has any remedy in light of the director's inaction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain original claims under the Work Injury Benefits Act, as established by the Supreme Court in Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General & another [2019] eKLR. The claimant's argument that the director's inaction constitutes a decision appealable to the court was rejected for lack of legal basis. Instead, the court found that the appropriate remedy for the claimant is to seek judicial review to compel the director to act. Consequently, the respondent's preliminary objection was upheld and the claim was struck out.
Court Disposition
claim struck out for want of jurisdiction
Orders
- The respondent's preliminary objection is upheld.
- The claimant's claim is struck out.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Masira v Acme Containers Limited (Cause E165 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 370 (KLR) (16 February 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELRC 370 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Cause E165 of 2022
L Ndolo, J
February 16, 2023
Between
Philip Morendi Masira
Claimant
and
Acme Containers Limited
Respondent
Ruling
1. By a Memorandum of Claim/Appeal dated March 9, 2022, the claimant seeks judgment against the respondent as follows:a.A declaration that the respondent is bound to compensate the claimant in full for injuries suffered and the attendant short and long term effects of the injuries at appropriate percentage as shall be found and declared by the court;b.An order directing the respondent to pay compensatory damages under the Work Injury Benefits Act and common law as shall be assessed by the court;c.An order directing the respondent to pay the claimant costs of the suit.
2. The respondent filed a response dated May 26, 2022 by which it gave notice of a preliminary objection based on section 90 of the Employment Act and section 51 of the Work Injury Benefits Act.
3. The objection was urged by way of written submissions.
4. The respondent submits that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain this case, which consists of a primary claim under the Work Injury Benefits Act.
5. On his part, the claimant submits that because the director of occupational safety and health did not act on his claim, then this court ought to assume jurisdiction over the matter.
6. Section 52(2) of the Work Injury Benefits Act provides for appeals to this court, from decisions of the director of occupational safety and health. The claimant asserts that the director’s inaction is in fact a decision and that his claim before the court ought to be treated as an appeal within the meaning of section 52(2) of WIBA.
7. While this is an ingenious argument, I find no legal basis for it. Pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General & another[2019] eKLR this court was divested of jurisdiction to deal with original claims under WIBA.
8. The claimant states that in light of inaction by the director, then he has been left without a remedy. I do not think so; as held by Manani J in Ezekiel Ombaso Onchieku v China Communications Construction Company Limited (Cause No E693 of 2021) a party who is aggrieved the director’s inaction has recourse, under judicial review proceedings, to seek orders compelling the director to act.
9. This avenue remains open to the claimant and the present proceedings cannot be sustained before this court. In light of this, I will not address the second limb of the respondent’s preliminary objection, being limitation of action.
10. Ultimately, I uphold the respondent’s preliminary objection and proceed to strike out the claimant’s claim.
11. Each party will bear their own costs.
12. Orders accordingly.
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023LINNET NDOLOJUDGEAppearance:Ms Alividza h/b Mr Namada for the claimantMr Kiplagat for the respondent