https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1683

Republic v Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services & another; Elivic Bloom Trading Ltd (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E007 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 1683 (KLR) (19 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1683 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Judicial Review Application E007 of 2026 JW Keli, J June 19, 2026 Between Republic Applicant and The Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services Respondent and Dina Kinya Interested Party and Elivic Bloom Trading Ltd Ex parte Applicant Judgment 1.The Ex Parte Applicant was the employer of the interested party. The respondent had assessed the work injury of the interested party. The Ex Parte Applicant pursuant to leave of the court issued on the 27th January 2026 filed judicial review application vide Notice of Motion dated 30th January 2026 and brought under Articles 47, 50(1), & 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, Order 53 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21 Laws of Kenya, Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015 and Section 8 and 9 Law Reform Act Cap 26 and all enabling powers and provisions of the Law) seeking for the following relief –a.That an Order of Mandamus do issue compelling the Respondent to issue a written determination on the Ex- Parte Applicant's objection dated 22nd May, 2025, pursuant to Section 52 of the Work Injury Benefits Act, Cap 236, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Honourable Court's order.b.That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue such further and/or other relief as it may deem just and expedient in the circumstances.c.That the costs of this Application be provided for. Grounds of the application 2.That the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services issued an award dated 20th May 2025 against the Ex Parte Applicant under the provisions of the Work Injury Benefits Act (WIBA). 3.That being dissatisfied with the said award, the Ex Parte Applicant promptly lodged a formal objection on 23td May 2025 pursuant to Section 51 of the Work Injury Benefits Act. The same was duly received/stamped on 23rd May 2025. 4.That despite the objection having been lodged timeously, the Respondent failed and/or neglected to render a written decision thereon within the statutory period prescribed under the Act. 5.That upon making inquiries regarding the delay in the delivery of the Respondent's decision on the objection, it later came to our attention that the Respondent had purportedly withdrawn the award dated 20th May 2025 on the stated ground that the same had not been uploaded on the online platform, notwithstanding that the parties had already been notified of the said award. 6.That it subsequently came to our attention that a further award dated 13th June 2025 had been issued through the online portal, which award was identical in substance and terms to the earlier award dated 20th May 2025. 7.That the decision and/or award dated 13th June 2025 was made ultra vires, in excess of jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the Work Injury Benefits Act, and in breach of the principles of legality, procedural fairness, and natural justice. 8.That notwithstanding the pendency of the objection, enforcement proceedings have been commenced against the Ex Parte Applicant in Milimani ELRC Misc. Application No. E495 of 2025, and the matter is fixed for inter-parties hearing on 24th February 2026. 9.That on 27th January 2026, this Honourable Court granted leave to the Ex-parte Applicant to file this application and ordered that such leave operate as a stay of execution and enforcement of the awards dated 20th May 2025 and 13th June 2025, including the proceedings in Milimani ELRC Misc. Application No. E495 of 2025: Dina Kinya v Elivic Bloom Trading Limited. 10.That the Respondent's failure to discharge its statutory obligation violates the Ex-parte Applicant's rights under Articles 47 (right to fair administrative action) and 50(1) (right to a fair hearing) of the Constitution of Kenya. 11.That the statutory objection mechanism under the Work Injury Benefits Act has been rendered nugatory by the Respondent's inaction, and the enforcement of the impugned award is both premature and unlawful. 12.That unless the order of Mandamus is granted, the Applicant shall suffer grave injustice and prejudice by being subjected to an unlawful and premature enforcement process. 13.That the Applicant has no other effective or alternative remedy and is compelled to invoke this Honourable Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 165(6) & (7) of the Constitution and the Law Reform Act. 14.The Ex Parte Applicant in support of the application exhibited the followinga.A copy of the Dosh 4 Form dated 20 May 2025 marked "DN1",b)A copy of the duly lodged objection dated 22 May 2025 marked "DN2".c)A copy of a letter dated 22 May 2025 forwarding the said objection to the Respondent marked as "DN3".d)A copy of the duly received forwarding letter dated 22nd May 2025 addressed to the Respondent and stamped on 23rd May 2025 marked as "DN4".e)A copy of the Dosh 4 form dated 13th June 2025 marked "DN5".f)A copy an email correspondence from the DOSHs dated 27th October 2025 marked "DN6".g)A copy of the Interested Party's Notice of Motion application dated 4ª December 2025 marked as "DN7".h)A copy of the court order dated 27th January 2026 granting leave to the Ex-parte Applicant marked as "DN8". Respondent’s case in brief 1.The Respondent admits that it received a physical notification of a work injury in the prescribed form ML/DOSH FORM 1 on 20th May 2025 from the employer, the Ex-Parte Applicant, disclosing the occurrence of an occupational accident on 9th December 2024 involving a worker, Dinah Kinya, the Interested Party. The ML/DOSH FORM 1 had been completed by a medical practitioner/doctor at Kenyatta National Hospital, showing a permanent incapacity of 25% and a temporary incapacity of 150 days. 2.It is stated that alongside the ML/DOSH FORM 1, details of costs incurred by the Interested Party amounting to Ksh. 7,416,989.00 was submitted to the Respondent. 3.Following investigations, and based on the award of 25% permanent incapacity, the temporary incapacity of 150 days and the costs incurred by the Interested Party, computation was done on 20th May 2025 pursuant to Sections 28 and 30 of the Work Injury Benefits Act, 2007 and a sum of Ksh. 10,425,409.76 awarded as compensation. 4.A demand was manually raised vide the prescribed form DOSH/WIBA 4 dated 20th May 2025 Ref. No. WIBNAT/330/2024 and issued to the Ex-Parte Applicant. 5.It is admitted that the Ex-Parte Applicant lodged an objection through a physical form DOSH/WIBA 12 dated 22nd May 2025 seeking review of the Respondent's decision on the amount compensable to the Interested Party. On 28th May 2025, the same was acted on by the Respondent and the decision communicated to the parties orally and in writing through emails sent on the same day at 0948 hours to the following email addresses: info(a)geminia.co.ke, the insurer's official email; copied to the Interested Party’s lawyer’s email lawyerkemunto@gmail.com; and the Ex-Parte Applicant’s email address, elvicbloom@gmail.com. The Respondent emphasises that the determination of the manually filed objection and communication of the objection decision was effected within the prescribed timelines under Section 52 of WIBA. 6.The Respondent explains that following an Executive Directive that Government Services be offered on digital platforms, the Respondent informed the Ex-Parte Applicant and its insurer on 28th May 2025 that it was required to visit the DOSHS online portal, doshmis.go.ke, and seek WIBA services. The Ex-Parte Applicant complied and uploaded the notification of work injury on the doshmis portal. Premised on the uploaded notification, another demand was raised, this time online, vide the prescribed form DOSH/WIBA 4 dated 13th June 2025 Ref. No. WIBNMKS/09065/2024 and issued to the Ex-Parte Applicant and its insurer. It contained an award of the same Ksh. 10,425,409.76 to the Interested Party. 7.The Respondent further explains that the system is designed to immediately and automatically notify the Ex-Parte Applicant (the employer), its insurer, in this case Geminia, and the Interested Party (the injured) once an award is made through their respective emails. They state that to this date, no party has raised an objection/dispute or any concern in the prescribed form on the Respondent’s online platform against the decision or assessment, or submitted any medical reports supporting their case and compelling nullification of the medical report availed by the Interested Party, which informed the award. It is stated that the online doshmis.go.ke system commenced a countdown from the date of the award for any aggrieved party to lodge an objection and at the lapse of 60-day period, the system automatically closed the window for lodging objections as provided for under Section 51 of the Act. 8.The Respondent avers that pursuant to Section 53 of WIBA, the Director being the administrator of the Act, is obliged to award compensation per Sections 28 and 30 of WIBA; refuse an award per Section 13 of WIBA; and reply to an objection under Section 52, contrary to the Ex-Parte Applicant's averments that the Director lacks such powers. It insists that the Respondent executed his duties in accordance with the law and did not act unfairly towards any party. The Interested Party’s case 9.The Interested Party provides context in respect of the present dispute as follows- She suffered a work injury in the course of her employment with the Ex-Parte Applicant leading to a large degloving scar around the upper leg, a degloving scar on the lower leg, and an active wound on the posterior foot and lower leg, requiring medical intervention estimated at Kshs. 500,000/=. The accident and injuries culminated in a report being filed with the Respondent in accordance with the Work Injury Benefits Act (WIBA). The Interested Party explains that the claim was initially made through the Respondent’s manual system and an assessment/award was made on 20th May 2025. The Interested Party admits that the Ex-Parte Applicant lodged an objection to this award shortly afterwards. 10.However, the Respondent having developed a digital system for lodging claims, the DOSH Management Information System (DOSHmis) portal, it directed vide a letter dated 28th May 2025 that the Interested Party files her claim digitally, for formal processing and compliance with statutory procedure. The earlier manual process, award dated 20th May 2025 and the objection thereto were withdrawn by DOSH office to pave way for digital processing of the claim, and both parties were informed of the withdrawal. It is stated that the Ex-Parte Applicant fully complied with the said directive and lodged the claim afresh through the DOSHmis portal, by filling in all the employee details; entering particulars of the Interested Party’s employment and earnings; notifying the Respondent of the accident and nature of the injuries; and uploading the claim information in the portal. The Respondent thereafter carried out investigations and issued an award dated 13th June 2025 assessing compensation to the Interested Party at Kshs. 10,483,219.77. It is the Interested Party’s position therefore, that the subsequent assessment and award by the Respondent was generated directly from the information supplied by the Ex-parte Applicant through the DOSHmis system. 11.The Interested Party avers that no objection in the prescribed form to the award issued on 13th June 2025 was lodged within 60 days under Section 51of the Work Injury Benefits Act, hence she argues that no duty to determine an objection exists on the part of the Respondent. According to the Interested Party, the award dated 13th June 2025 constitutes the only valid and final statutory determination under WIBA and superseded all prior manual communications. 12.The Ex-Parte Applicant points out that the DOSHmis portal clearly displays the statutory timelines and specifically shows the number of days remaining to lodge an objection. As the party who filed and managed the claim on the portal, the Ex-Parte Applicant could at all times see the countdown of the sixty (60) days provided for objection. It is the Interested Party’s case that the Ex-Parte Applicant had full knowledge, opportunity and control to lodge any objection within time but failed and/or neglected to do so, of their own volition. The Ex-Parte Applicant cannot be heard to allege that they were unaware of the award dated 13th June 2025, having re-filed the claim digitally on the DOSHmis system. 13.The Interested Party states that there is no pending or undetermined objection capable of being determined or compelled. She further states that an order of Mandamus cannot issue where the statutory duty has already been performed or where the Ex-Parte Applicant is bypassing WIBA mechanisms, with Judicial Review not being a substitute for the statutory process. The Interested Party is categorical that the present application is intended to delay settlement of a lawful award, and should not be entertained by the Court, especially since the Interested Party requires urgent medical treatment without which she is at high risk of serious infection, worsening disability and permanent impairment. Determination 14.Following directions by the court that the application should be canvassed through written submissions, the parties filed. Issues for determination 15.The Ex Parte Applicant identified the following issues for determination in their submissions dated 12th May 2026, namely:i.Whether the Respondent's action and failure to issue a written response to the Objection dated 20th May, 2025 violated the mandatory statutory obligations under Section 52(1) of WIBA and Article 47(1) of the Constitution.ii.Whether the Respondent acted illegally, irregularly and ultra vires the provisions of the Work Injury Benefits Act by cancelling/withdrawing the award dated 20th May, 2025 and the Objection to the said award and issuing new award dated 13th June, 2025.iii.Whether the Respondent violated the doctrine/principle of functus officio.iv.Whether the Respondent violated the doctrine of legitimate expectation. 16.Conversely, in his submissions dated 14th May 2026, the Respondent identified the following issues for determination:-i.Whether the Respondent acted ultra vires in the revision of the demand DOSH/WI BA 4 that had award of KES 10,425,409.76 to an online version of the award of KES 10,425,409.76.ii.Whether the Ex-Parte Applicant should pay a sum of KES 10,425,409.76 (ten million, four hundred twenty five thousand, four hundred and nine shillings and seventy-six cents only) to the Interested Party, Dinah Kinya.iii.Whether the Ex-Parte Applicant should be granted leave for orders sought. 17.The Respondent later filed supplementary submissions dated 15th May 2026 highlighting the following further issue for determination:-Whether the Judicial Review application herein merits the grant of the order of mandamus sought. 18.Finally, in her submissions dated 15th May 2026, the Interested Party identified the following issues for determination:-i.Whether there exists any pending objection capable of determination by the Respondent.ii.Whether the Ex-Parte Applicant has met the threshold for grant of an order of Mandamus.iii.Whether Judicial Review can be used to circumvent the statutory dispute resolution framework under WIBA.iv.Whether the Ex-Parte Applicant approached court with clean hands.v.Whether the Ex Parte Applicant’s objections to the interested party’s screenshots/emails affect the determination of the mandamus prayer.1.The court discerned the issue for determination was whether the application was merited. Whether the application was merited. 19.The court found it was not in dispute that the respondent sent a demand notice being the assessment award dated 20th May 2025 to the Ex Parte Applicant in relation to the work injury suffered by the interested party. It was also not in dispute the Ex Parte Applicant filed an objection to the award on the basis that the percentage of the permanent incapacity was high compared to the injuries (DN2). The objection is stamped as received on 23rd May 2025 by the respondent (DN4). Further the Ex Parte Applicant produced another assessment award dated 13th June 2025, which it alleged was ultravires as the respondent was functus officio. Respondent’s case 20.In his Replying Affidavit, the Respondent highlighted the administrative procedure used in the processing of work injury compensation of workers. Administrative procedures are used to execute services provided in law. The respondent stated that it was rare to find a provision in law that outlines every detail of the process of how execution of that provision is done. In this particular case, ML/DOSH FORM 1 had been lodged with the Respondent. The lodging of ML/DOSH FORM 1 involved computation of the amount compensable which was generated in the form of DOSH/WIBA 4 showing an amount of KES 10,425,409.76. It is within the public domain that there was a Government directive for all Government agencies to provide services online. The directive was cutting across all Ministries, Departments and Agencies. In the atmosphere of complying with the Government directive, the Respondent advised the ExParte Applicant to lodge the ML/DOSH FORM 1 online; to which advice the Ex-Parte Applicant heeded. In the lodgement of the ML/DOSH FORM 1 online, the Ex-Parte Applicant or its insurer did not require production of any copy of the Government directive to go online and did not raise any concern as to whether the Respondent acted ultra vires or otherwise. The Respondent did not seek the input of the Ex-Parte Applicant in going online either. The Ex-Parte Applicant just heeded the advice and lodged the notification online. In the same manner and on an Ex-Parte Applicant's online account, a demand of KES 10,425,409.76 was uploaded by the Respondent. On each of the online documentation there was an Q-R code. 21.The DOSHMIS online system, as per the Replying Affidavit averred by the Respondent, is designed in a manner that the system sends a copy to the company's insurer once upload is made to the company. It is definite that the lodgement of the ML/DOSH FORM 1 online by the Ex-Parte Applicant was copied to the insurer. The insurer cannot deny knowledge about the online demand because of the said design. Subsequently, an objection was lodged on a hard copy by the Ex-Parte Applicant's insurer. When the objector was advised to lodge the same on an online platform in a similar manner as ML/DOSH FORM 1, the insurer failed to heed but has now raised concerns requiring that copies of the Government directives on migration online platform should have been furnished. The Respondent even offered to assist the Ex-Parte Applicant in case of any difficulties with the system. Interested party response 22.The interested party was the injured worker and filed a replying affidavit sworn on the 27th February 2026 where she reiterated the position of the respondent above and specifically that there was no objection to the award of 13th June 2025, in opposition to the application. Decision 23.It is settled law that Jurisdiction of the court flows from either the Constitution of Kenya and the legislation or both, as observed by the Supreme court in Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & 2 others [2012] eKLR’ A court’s jurisdiction flows from either the Constitution or legislation or both. Thus, a court of law could only exercise jurisdiction as conferred by the Constitution or other written law. It cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction exceeding that which was conferred upon it by law. The issue as to whether a court of law had jurisdiction to entertain a matter before it, was not one of mere procedural technicality; it went to the very heart of the matter, for without jurisdiction, the court cannot entertain any proceedings.’ The respondent is a quasi-judicial authority exercising adjudication powers as given by WIBA. Just like the court, its jurisdiction flows from the law. The exercise of the powers of DOSH is limited. WIBA provides for the powers of DOSH and how it is exercised. Coming home to the specific cause, the issue before the court is whether there is a valid objection before DOSH which is not determined and whether on issuance of the award dated 20th May 2025, the DOSH was functus officio. 24.The relevant legal framework (WIBA) is as follows-‘Section 10. Right to compensation(1)An employee who is involved in an accident resulting in the employee’s disablement or death is subject to the provisions of this Act, and entitled to the benefits provided for under this Act.(2)An employer is liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act to an employee injured while at work.(3)An employee is not entitled to compensation if an accident, not resulting in serious disablement or death, is caused by the deliberate and wilful misconduct of the employee.Section 22. Notice of injury or accident by employer to Director(1)Subject to the provisions of this section, an employer shall report an accident to the Director in the prescribed manner within seven days after having received notice of an accident or having learned that an employee has been injured in an accident.Section 23. Inquiry by Director(1)After having received notice of an accident or having learned that an employee has been injured in an accident the Director shall make such inquiries as are necessary to decide upon any claim or liability in accordance with this Act.Section24. Particulars in support of claim(1)An employee who is injured in an accident or his dependant, shall, when reporting the accident or thereafter at the request of the employer or Director, furnish such information and documents as may be prescribed or as the employer or Director may request.(2)An employer shall, within seven days after having received a claim, medical report or other document or information concerning such claim, submit the claim, report, document or information to the Director.Section25. Employee to submit to medical examination(1)An employee who claims compensation or to whom compensation has been paid or is payable, shall when required by the Director or the employer as the case may be, after reasonable notice, submit himself at the time and place mentioned in the notice to an examination by the medical practitioner designated by the Director or the employer with the approval of the Director.Section 51. Objections and appeals against decisions of the Director(1)Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Director on any matter under this Act, may within sixty days of such decision, lodge an objection with the Director against such decision.(2)The objection shall be in writing in the prescribed form accompanied by particulars containing a concise statement of the circumstances in which the objection is made and the relief or order which the objector claims, or the question which he desires to have determined.Section 52. Director’s reply(1)The Director shall within fourteen days after the receipt of an objection in the prescribed form, give a written answer to the objection, varying or upholding his decision and giving reasons for the decision objected to, and shall within the same period send a copy of the statement to any other person affected by the decision.(2)An objector may, within thirty days of the Director’s reply being received by him, appeal to the Industrial Court against such decision.’ 25.The Ex Parte Applicant lodged the objection, which was received by the respondent. This was acknowledged in a letter dated 28th May 2025 by the respondent, confirming receipt of a letter dated 23rd May 2025 regarding the objection to the WIBA assessment for the reason provided (DN-2 by the interested party). The respondent's sole duty upon receiving the objection was to comply with the provisions of section 52 of WIBA and to issue a decision. 26.The respondent submitted as follows: the Ex parte Applicant, through its written submissions dated 12th May 2026, informed this Court that the Respondent exceeded its mandate by withdrawing or cancelling an award already served on the parties. That submission is not true. The Respondent, via its Replying Affidavit, demonstrated the circumstances leading to the lodging of the Notice online and the subsequent issuance of the demand on 13th June 2025. That the Ex parte Applicant duly complied with the Respondent's guidance on filing the Notice online through the DOSH e-portal. The system is such that once the demand is issued, it will be emailed to the Ex parte Applicant's Insurance Company. No proper justification has been provided for the failure of the Ex parte Applicant or its Insurance Company to see the Demand of 13th June 2025. The Respondent submits that, through the doctrine of estoppel by conduct, the Ex parte Applicant should be estopped from claiming that they were not served by the Demand of 13th June 2025. The Ex parte Applicant willingly acted on our guidance of 28th May 2025 and filed the Notice through the DOSH e-portal; they did not object to the use of the online platform then. Why do they now seek to challenge it? That this attempt by the Ex parte Applicant is an effort to rewrite their wrong for failing to raise an objection within the prescribed statutory period provided in Section 51 of WIBA. The Court of Appeal in Serah Njeri Mwobi vs John Kimani Njoroge (2013) eKLR held that: "The doctrine of estoppel operates as a principle of law which precludes a person from asserting something contrary to what is implied by a previous action or statement of that person." We submit that the Ex parte Applicant should be precluded from asserting the contrary, given that they willingly abided with the Respondent's guidance and uploaded a fresh Notice via the DOSH e-portal. The expectation was that any objection or appeal would also be undertaken on the online platform. That this was never done. 27.The court finds that the alleged government directives on online services could not apply retrospectively to undo the assessment of damages and the lodged objection. Under WIBA timeliness are strict for all parties. The law is superior. The alleged government directives cannot be used to confer any authority to DOSH outside WIBA(Samuel Macharia case, above). I was persuaded by the decision cited by the Ex Parte Applicant in Republic v Director, Directorate of Occupational Safety & Health Services & another; CC (Suing on Her Own Behalf and as Mother and Next Friend of Minor - RCN, IKN and MKN) & another (Ex parte Applicants) [2026] KEELRC 723 (KLR)where the court held as follows:- "The court is of the view the 1st Respondent exceeded its mandate in changing its award without involving the Applicants and this is tantamount to violating the constitutional rights of the Applicants Contrary to Article 47(1) of the Constitution which provides: -"Every person has the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.; 28.It is my finding that the respondent was functus officio on issuance of the assessment of damages demand dated 20th May 2025. It could not revisit the assessment of damages outside the objection legal framework under section 52 of WIBA(cited above). In the case of Raila Odinga & 2 others v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 3 others [2013] eKLR cited by the Supreme Court in Asanyo &3 others v Attorney-General [2020] KESC 62 (KLR) the Court interpreted the principle of Functus officio as follows: "The functus officio doctrine is one of the mechanisms by means of which the law gives expression to the principle of finality. According to this doctrine, a person who is vested with adjudicative or decision making powers may, as a general rule, exercise those powers only once in relation to the same matter.... The [principle] is that once such a decision has been taken, it is (subject to any right of appeal to a superior body or functionary) final and conclusive. Such a decision cannot be reviewed or varied by the decision-maker.” The respondent exercised his power to assess the damages payable for the injury suffered by the interested party and communicated the same on 20th May 2025. The respondent then became functus officio unless moved under section 51 of the WIBA vide objection. Indeed, the respondent was moved, but instead of compliance with section 52, invoked an extraneous issue of the online portal. The process under section 52 is time-bound. The respondent ought to have complied with section 52 without reliance on technicalities, which action was contrary to article 159(2)(d) of the constitution. The issue of whether or not the Ex Parte Applicant was notified of the online procedures is irrelevant as the respondent had no legal authority to issue a subsequent assessment award in the guise of complying with a government directive. 29.The court, in the circumstances, holds that the action of issuance of the assessment of 13th June 2025 was a nullity, null and void. The valid assessment is dated 20th May 2025. The objection as received by the respondent is a live controversy that ought to be determined by the respondent under section 52 of WIBA. The remedy sought is a Judicial Review Order of Mandamus. In defining the scope Order of Mandamus, the Court of Appeal in Kenya National Examination Council v Republic; GGN & 9 others (Ex parte) [1997] KECA 58 (KLR) stated-‘24.The next issue we must deal with is this: What is the scope and efficacy of an Order of Mandamus? Once again we turn to Halsbury’s Law of England, 4th Edition Volume 1 at page 111 from paragraph 89. That learned treatise says:-“The order must command no more than the party against whom the application is made is legally bound to perform. Where a general duty is imposed, a mandamus cannot require it to be done at once. Where a statute, which imposes a duty leaves discretion as to the mode of performing the duty in the hands of the party on whom the obligation is laid, a mandamus cannot command the duty in question to be carried out in a specific way.”25.What do these principles mean? They mean that an order of mandamus will compel the performance of a public duty which is imposed on a person or body of persons by a statute and where that person or body of persons has failed to perform the duty to the detriment of a party who has a legal right to expect the duty to be performed. We can do no better than give examples.’’ The court applied the foregoing decision in the determination of the application. 30.I find the judicial review application merited to compel the respondent to perform his statutory duty under sections 51 and 52 of the WIBA and issue a decision on the objection by the applicant dated 22nd May 2025. The 2nd assessment award of 13th June 2025 is set aside for being null and void, having been rendered without jurisdiction. 31.In the upshot, the court allows the judicial review application as follows-a.The Honourable Court is pleased to issue an Order of Mandamus compelling the Respondent to issue a written determination on the Ex- Parte Applicant's objection dated 22nd May, 2025, pursuant to Section 52 of the Work Injury Benefits Act, Cap 236, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Court's order.b.The Ex Parte Applicant is awarded costs of the application payable by the respondent. 32.It is so Ordered. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 19TH JUNE, 2026.JEMIMAH KELI,JUDGE.In The Presence Of:Court Assistant: OtienoEx Parte Applicant - BettRespondent - OlaibonRepresentation:Ex Parte Applicant- Bett Advocate instructed by Mukite Musangi & Company AdvocatesRespondent- Oloibon Advocate instructed by The Hon Attorney GeneralInterested Party – Kemunto Advocate instructed by Juliet Kemunto & Company Advocates