[2023] KEELRC 756 (KLR)
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to enforce awards made by the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services under the Work Injury Benefits Act. The only jurisdiction conferred upon the Employment and Labour Relations Court by Section 52(2) of the Act is appellate, not enforcement. The applicant's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELRC 756 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kiema Musya; Respondent: Multiple Hauliers (EA) Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application E201 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- application struck out for want of jurisdiction
- Judges
- J Rika
- Legal Topics
- Work Injury Benefits, Jurisdiction of Elrc, Enforcement of Awards, Preliminary Objection
- 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
Kiema Musya
Applicant
Multiple Hauliers (EA) Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Does the Employment and Labour Relations Court have jurisdiction to enforce an award of the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services under the Work Injury Benefits Act?
- 2 Is the application for adoption and enforcement of the assessment award properly before the court?
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to enforce awards made by the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services under the Work Injury Benefits Act. The only jurisdiction conferred upon the Employment and Labour Relations Court by Section 52(2) of the Act is appellate, not enforcement. The applicant's request for the court to adopt and enforce the Director's assessment as an order of the court is not supported by any statutory provision. The court cannot exercise powers not granted by law or the Constitution, and to do so would be contrary to the principle of legality. Consequently, the preliminary objection was upheld and the application was struck out.
Court Disposition
application struck out for want of jurisdiction
Orders
- The preliminary objection is sustained.
- The application is struck out, with no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Musya v Multiple Hauliers (EA) Limited (Miscellaneous Application E201 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 756 (KLR) (24 March 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELRC 756 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Miscellaneous Application E201 of 2022
J Rika, J
March 24, 2023
Between
Kiema Musya
Claimant
and
Multiple Hauliers (EA) Limited
Respondent
Ruling
1. The Applicant seeks through his Application dated November 30, 2022, for adoption of an assessment of the Chief Occupational Health and Safety Officer, dated July 19, 2018, as an order of the Court.
2. The assessment amounts to Kshs 791,460. 81. The Applicant was, according to his Supporting Affidavit, injured on July 19, 2018.
3. The Respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated January 12, 2023, which states that the Court only has an appellate jurisdiction under Section 52 (2) of the Work Injury Benefits Act, Cap 236 the Laws of Kenya.
4. It was agreed by the Parties that the Preliminary Objections is considered and determined on the strength of the record. Parties confirmed filing and exchange of Submissions, on February 21, 2023 when they last appeared before the Court.
The Court Finds__: - 5. The Applicant cannot have been injured at work on July 19, 2018, and obtained an award from the Chief Occupational Health and Safety Officer on the same date, as pleaded.
6. He correctly states at paragraph 8 of his Affidavit, that the Work Injury Benefits Act, does not provide a mechanism for enforcement of awards of the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services, in event an Employer declined to pay out the award.
7. Why then does the Applicant ask the Court to enforce his award, if there is no law, empowering the Court to do so? The Applicant is inviting the Court to exercise judicial craft and innovation, which is contrary to the constitutive law to which this Court is subject, and against theConstitution of Kenya.
8. It is correct as stated in the Notice of Preliminary Objection, that the Court only has an appellate jurisdiction under Section 52(2) of the Work Injury Benefits Act. It does not have jurisdiction to enforce awards of the Director.
It Is Ordered : -a.The Preliminary Objection is sustained.b.The Applications is struck out, with no order on the costs.c.This file is closed.
DATED, SIGNED AND RELEASED TO THE PARTIES ELECTRONICALLY, AT NAIROBI, UNDER THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND JUDICIARY COVID-19 GUIDELINES, THIS 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2023JAMES RIKAJUDGE