https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1832

Nyang’au v Raiforest Farmlands Kenya Ltd (Appeal E003 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1832 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1832 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru Appeal E003 of 2025 J Rika, J June 30, 2026 Between Salome Moraa Nyang’Au Appellant and Raiforest Farmlands Kenya Limited Respondent (An Appeal from the Judgment of Hon. Principal Magistrate Kelly Aomo, in Naivasha C.M.C.C No. 136 of 2016, delivered on 11th December 2024 at Naivasha) Judgment 1.The Appellant, an Employee of the Respondent, filed Claim at the Trial Court, for work injury against the Respondent. 2.She sought special and general damages for work injury sustained at the workplace, on 19th July 2015. 3.She worked as a general worker. She told the Trial Court that she slipped while washing buckets used in storage of flowers. 4.She alleged that the work environment was unsafe. The ground was wet and muddy. Her gumboots were worn out. She blamed the Respondent for not providing her a safe working environment, and proper gumboots. 5.The Trial Court rejected her Claim, finding that the Appellant was provided new gumboots in the year 2015, and it was unlikely that they were worn out 3 months later. 6.It was the finding of the Trial Court that the Appellant’s duties included cleaning of the premises, and the presence of mud and water where she was cleaning buckets, could only be attributed to her negligence. 7.She filed a Memorandum of Appeal dated 11th December 2024. There are 4 Grounds of Appeal:-a.The Trial Court erred in dismissing the Claim against the weight of evidence.b.The Trial Court erred in failing to appreciate submissions and judicial authorities filed by the Appellant.c.The Trial Court erred in failing to discuss issues before it.d.The Trial Court erred in failing to give an estimate of damages awardable. 8.It is proposed by the Appellant that:-a.The Trial Court Judgment is set aside and substituted with a Judgment in favour of the Appellant, with 100% liability assigned to the Respondent.b.The Court assesses damages awardable to the Appellant.c.Costs to the Appellant. 9.The Parties were directed to file and exchange submissions, which the Appellant confirmed to have done, at the last mention before the Court, on 28th April 2026. The Court Finds: - 10.The Record of Appeal indicates that on 9th March 2022, the Trial Magistrate, citing the Supreme Court decision, Law Society of Kenya v. Attorney-General & Another [2019] e-KLR, discontinued the proceedings, directing the Appellant to pursue her claim under the Work Injury Benefits Act. 11.However, on 15th August 2024, without any recorded explanation, the Trial Court resumed hearing of the Claim. The Court has not traced from the proceedings, a ruling, reviewing and setting aside the orders made on 9th March 2022. 12.The Trial Court concluded the hearing, and made the conclusions challenged by the Appellant on Appeal. 13.The Court agrees with the Appellant that the Trial Court misapprehended her evidence on the gumboots. 14.At page 105 of the Record of Appeal, the Trial Court states: -‘’ The Plaintiff blamed the Defendant, for not providing her gumboots with good treads. She told the Court that she was provided with gumboots in April 2015. If indeed she was provided with gumboots in 2015, it is unbelievable that the same had already lost its grip 3 months later...’’ 15.The Trial Court made an assumption that the Appellant was provided a new pair of gumboots, in April 2015. 16.The Appellant stated in her witness statement filed at the Trial Court, which was adopted in her evidence-in-chief, that: -‘’ I was using old gumboots issued to me by the Respondent. They were old at the time of issuance to me. They did not have good treads.’’ 17.The Trial Court erred in its finding that the Appellant had been issued gumboots 3 months before the accident, and that it was unbelievable that the boots would be worn out, 3 months after their issuance. The evidence by the Appellant, which was not contradicted by witnesses for the Respondent, was that the gumboots were issued old, while already worn out. 18.The conclusion that it was the Appellant’s responsibility to clean up the mud and the water which she asserted occasioned the accident, was not supported by the evidence. 19.There was no evidence that the Appellant’s role included cleaning the floor. She was cleaning buckets which were used as flower containers. There was no evidence that she was to clean the buckets and the floor. 20.The decision of the Trial Court was against the weight of evidence. There were certain errors in evaluation of evidence by the Trial Court. 21.The Appellant was using soap and a chemical detergent known as calcium, to wash the buckets. It was the duty of the Respondent to ensure that she worked in a safe environment, and that the dirty water from her washing of buckets, with the soap and the cleaning chemicals, was properly drained and did not collect on the floor, such as would occasion the Claimant to slip, and injure herself. 22.It was similarly the duty of the Respondent to supply the Appellant with proper gumboots, or other non-slip boots, that would ensure she did not experience slip hazard, and injure herself as she did in the end. 23.Section 6 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 2007, provides that every Occupier [Employer], shall ensure the safety, health and welfare at work of all persons working in their workplace. 24.Section 47 of the same Act requires that every workplace, shall be kept in a clean state, and free from effluvia arising from any drain, sanitary convenience. Accumulation of dirt must be removed daily. The floor must be cleaned at least once every week, applying the most effective methods. 25.Section 51 specifically requires that, where the process is carried on, which renders the floor wet, effective means of draining off the wet, must be provided by Employers and Occupiers. 26.In Nakuru High Court Civil Appeal No. 38 OF 1995, Sakoro Limited V. Bernard Njenga, it was explained that the duty of the Employer to provide a safe place of work, comprises not merely warning Employees against unusual dangers known to them, but also, make the place of employment as safe as the exercise of reasonable skill and care would permit. 27.The Court of Appeal in Purity Wambui Muriithi v. Highlands Mineral Water Co. Limited [2015] e-KLR, stated that Employees too, have a duty to take reasonable precaution for their own safety and health at work. Reference was made to Section 13[1] of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which imposes this duty of self-care. 28.While the Respondent bore a large portion of liability, the Appellant herself did not adduce any evidence at the Trial Court, to show that she took any precaution, to prevent the accident and injuries sustained. She is not recorded to have requested for supply of new pair of gumboots, or requested the Respondent to have the floor regularly cleaned and drained, as she washed the buckets. An Employee who is provided old gumboots and silently continues to wear them to work, without any form of protest, or request made to the Employer, cannot be said to have exercised precaution, or discharged the duty of self-care. 29.The Court shall set aside the Judgment of the Trial Court, and replace it with its own Judgment, granting the Claim as prayed, but apportioning liability at 25% to the Appellant and 75% to the Respondent. 30.Medical evidence availed to the Trial Court, indicated that the Appellant suffered blunt trauma to her lower back, with dislocation of the 5th coccyx. 31.The Appellant prayed for general damages assessed at Kshs. 700,000 and special damages at Kshs. 3,350. She prayed for future medical costs at Kshs.50,000 – total Kshs. 753,350. 32.The Respondent proposed an award of Kshs. 100,000 in general damages, in event the Trial Court found in favour of the Appellant. 33.The Appellant sustained a single dislocation of the 5th coccyx [tailbone] and blunt trauma injury to her lower back. This was in 2015. The injuries were comparable to those sustained by the Respondent, in Coast Broadway Co. Limited v. Elizabeth Alaka Achebi [2015] e-KLR, where general damages were awarded at Kshs. 300,000. In Patrick Kinoti Miguna v. Patrick Mburunga G. Muthamia [2014] e-KLR, the Plaintiff sustained a single dislocation to the shoulder with post-traumatic arthritis, and was awarded Kshs. 300,000 in general damages. 34.The Appellant is awarded general damages at Kshs. 300,000 less contributory negligence at 25%. 35.There was no proof of costs of future medical care, claimed at Kshs. 50,000. The claim was speculative, and not quantifiable. 36.The prayer for special damages in cost of the medical report, at Kshs. 3,350 was documented and is allowed. 37.No order on the costs. 38.Interest allowed at court rate, from the date of Judgment.In Sum, It Is Ordered: -a.The Appeal is allowed.b.Judgment of the Trial Court is set aside.c.It is substituted with Judgment of this Court granting the Claim in favour of the Appellant.d.Liability is apportioned at 25% to 75% in favour of the Appellant.e.The result is that the Respondent shall pay to the Appellant general damages at Kshs. 300,000 and special damages at Kshs. 3,350 = Kshs. 303,350.f.Less 25% liability [ Kshs. 75,837], the total award of general and special damage is granted at Kshs. 227,513.g.No order on the costs.h.Interest allowed at court rate, from the date of Judgment till payment is made in full. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY AT NAKURU, UNDER RULE 68[5] OF THE E&LRC [PROCEDURE] RULES, 2024, THIS 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.JAMES RIKAJUDGE