[2025] KEHC 6872 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 6872 (KLR)

The High Court held that the trial court correctly found it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's suit, as the claim was based on a work injury occurring after the Supreme Court's 2019 decision upholding the constitutionality of the Work Injury Benefits Act (WIBA). Under Sections 16 and 17 of WIBA, such claims must be filed before the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services, not in ordinary courts. The court further held that, once jurisdiction is found lacking, the trial court should not have proceeded to determine the substantive merits of the case. Any findings beyond the issue of jurisdiction were set aside as a nullity. The appeal was dismissed for lack of...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 6872 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Mutemi Mwaroko Ngii; Respondent: Rowda Mosque; Respondent: Mohamed Sheikh Osman; Respondent: Anthony (contractor)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Garissa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
20 March 2025
Case Number
Civil Appeal E001 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for lack of merit; each party to bear own costs for the appeal.
Judges
JN Onyiego
Legal Topics
Work Injury Benefits Act, Jurisdiction of Courts, Vicarious Liability, Negligence in Construction, Pleadings and Procedure, Illegality in Contracts
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Employment and Labour Tort Law Work Injury Benefits Act Jurisdiction of Courts Vicarious Liability Negligence in Construction Pleadings and Procedure +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mutemi Mwaroko Ngii

Appellant

Rowda Mosque

Respondent

Mohamed Sheikh Osman

Respondent

Anthony (contractor)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the work injury claim after the Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Work Injury Benefits Act (WIBA).
  2. 2 Whether the respondents were vicariously liable for the death of the deceased at the construction site.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in considering issues of jurisdiction suo moto without hearing the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that the trial court correctly found it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's suit, as the claim was based on a work injury occurring after the Supreme Court's 2019 decision upholding the constitutionality of the Work Injury Benefits Act (WIBA). Under Sections 16 and 17 of WIBA, such claims must be filed before the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services, not in ordinary courts. The court further held that, once jurisdiction is found lacking, the trial court should not have proceeded to determine the substantive merits of the case. Any findings beyond the issue of jurisdiction were set aside as a nullity. The appeal was dismissed for lack of...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed for lack of merit; each party to bear own costs for the appeal.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs of the appeal.