[2021] KEHC 608 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 608 (KLR)

The court held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain claims arising under the Work Injury Benefits Act (WIBA), as previously determined in a reasoned judgment by Hon. Mr. Justice Musyoka. The applications for stay, brought by the appellant, disregarded these prior decisions and were therefore dismissed. The court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 608 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: West Kenya Sugar Co. Limited; Respondent: Matayo Ingoshe
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 56 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay
Outcome
applications dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Workplace Injury, Wiba Jurisdiction, High Court Jurisdiction
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Workplace Injury Wiba Jurisdiction High Court Jurisdiction

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

West Kenya Sugar Co. Limited

Appellant

Matayo Ingoshe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine claims arising under the Work Injury Benefits Act (WIBA).
  2. 2 Whether the applications for stay should be granted in light of previous decisions on jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain claims arising under the Work Injury Benefits Act (WIBA), as previously determined in a reasoned judgment by Hon. Mr. Justice Musyoka. The applications for stay, brought by the appellant, disregarded these prior decisions and were therefore dismissed. The court emphasized that the continued filing of such applications, in the face of clear judicial pronouncements on lack of jurisdiction, was improper and bordered on contempt. Accordingly, the applications were dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

applications dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The applications for stay are dismissed with costs.