SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Heritage Insurance Company Limited v David Fikiri Joshua & another [2021] KEELRC 1634 (KLR)

[2021] KEELRC 1634 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1634
Citation
[2021] KEELRC 1634 (KLR)
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeAppealPostureAppeal from the ruling and order of Hon. Dr. Julie Oseko, Chief Magistrate in Civil Case No. 87 of 2015 at MalindiCoramBYRAM ONGAYA
The Court upholds the appellant's preliminary objection and sets aside the ruling and orders given on 14.12.2018, striking out the 1st respondent's plaint. Each party bears their own costs.

Facts

The 1st respondent filed a plaint against the 2nd respondent alleging that on 23.01.2014 while on duty, a heavy broken coral stone fell on his left hand causing injuries. The 2nd respondent denied employment and claimed workman's compensation policy coverage.

Issues

  • Whether the Employment and Labour Relations Court has jurisdiction to hear the suit
  • Whether the appellant is liable for the 1st respondent's injuries under the Work Injury Benefits Act (WIBA)

Reasoning

The Court of Appeal's decision in Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 133 of 2011 declared section 16 of WIBA unconstitutional. The Court of Appeal's decision is binding and the statute is now good law. The suit is dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The ruling and orders given on 14.12.2018 are set aside
  • The 1st respondent's plaint is struck out

Remedies

  • Each party bears their own costs of the suit and the appeal

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Work Injury Benefits Act (WIBA)
Cases cited (1)
  • Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 133 of 2011 - Attorney General -Versus- Law Society of Kenya & Another [2017] eKLR
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case