https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1500
The Court found, on the Respondent’s unchallenged evidence, that an objection to the Director’s assessment had been lodged under section 51 of the Work Injury Benefits Act and was still pending. Because that statutory process had not been concluded, the application to adopt the assessment as a court order was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEELRC 1500 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mwalimu M. Babuhita; Respondent: Crustalean Processors Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application E123 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Adopt DOSH Assessment as Court Order
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- ["K Ocharo"]
- Legal Topics
- Work Injury Benefits Act, Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services Assessment, Objection to Assessment, Prematurity of Application, Adoption of Administrative Award as Court Order
- 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
Mwalimu M. Babuhita
Applicant
Crustalean Processors Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Adopt DOSH Assessment as Court Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Director’s assessment of compensation could be adopted as an order of court while an objection was pending under the Work Injury Benefits Act.
- 2 Whether the application was prematurely filed in light of the Respondent’s objection under section 51 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found, on the Respondent’s unchallenged evidence, that an objection to the Director’s assessment had been lodged under section 51 of the Work Injury Benefits Act and was still pending. Because that statutory process had not been concluded, the application to adopt the assessment as a court order was premature and had to be dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 20 September 2025 is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the Respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Babuhita v Crustalean Processors Limited (Miscellaneous Application E123 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1500 (KLR) (28 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1500 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa Miscellaneous Application E123 of 2025 K Ocharo, J May 28, 2026 Between Mwalimu M. Babuhita Applicant and Crustalean Processors Limited Respondent Ruling 1.By his Notice of Motion application dated 20th September 2025, the Applicant seeks that the Court be pleased to adopt the assessment of the Director of Occupational Health and Safety made on 19th February 2025 as an order of this Court, and consequently a decree do issue for the awarded amount of KShs. 382, 600. 2.The Applicant contends that at all material times, he was an employee of the Respondent as a driver. While in the course of his employment, he was shot by Al-Shabaab militants on 9th April, 2024. 3.Subsequently, he reported the accident to the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services, Mombasa, and a DOSH/WIBA 4 Form was completed. Consequently, the Director assessed the compensation payable to him at KShs. 382, 600. Pursuant to his mandate, the Director sent a demand to the Respondent for payment of the awarded sum, but the Respondent refused and/or neglected to settle the sum within the 90 days stipulated under Section 26[4] of the Work Injury Benefits Act, thereby committing a criminal offence under Section 26[6] of the Act. 4.By the Reply Affidavit sworn on 10th April 2026 by Asif Ameer Suleiman Verjee, its Director, the Respondent challenged the Applicant’s application, stating that it lodged an objection to the decision of the Director of Occupational Safety & Health Services on 21st March, 2025, thereby within the stipulated statutory period. 5.The Director informed the Applicant of the Objection by letter dated 25th March, 2026, and fixed the Objection for hearing on 22nd April 2026. The objection is still under consideration. Consequently, the Applicant’s application herein is premature. Determination. 6.I have carefully considered the Applicant’s application dated 20th September 2025, and the Respondent’s Replying Affidavit in opposition to the application. I note the Respondent’s unchallenged contention that it filed an objection against the Director’s award under Section 51 of the Act, and that the objection is pending consideration. Consequently, I hold that the application was prematurely filed. It is hereby dismissed with costs. READ, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY 2026.OCHARO KEBIRAJUDGE