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

Tonbi v Vintage Concept Limited & another (Miscellaneous Application 026 of 2022) [2022] KEELRC 4067 (KLR) (30 June 2022) (Ruling)

[2022] KEELRC 4067 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
4067
Citation
[2022] KEELRC 4067 (KLR)
Decided
30 June 2022
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeMiscellaneous ApplicationPostureAppeal from original trial
Holding

The court adopts the assessment of the DOSHS and orders the respondents to pay the reduced compensation of Ksh 2,610,000.

Facts

The applicant, John Kinara Tonbi, sustained a spinal injury while working for Vintage Concept Limited. The Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services (DOSHS) assessed compensation at Ksh 2,970,000, which was reduced to Ksh 2,610,000 after re-examination. The applicant has not received the reduced compensation.

Issues

  1. Whether the employer and insurer are jointly and severally liable for the reduced compensation
  2. Whether the 90-day period for payment is time-barred

Reasoning

The court applies the provisions of the Work Injury Benefits Act (WIBA) and the Employment Act, 2007, to hold the employer and insurer jointly and severally liable for the reduced compensation. The 90-day period for payment is not time-barred as the employer submitted all necessary documents within the period.

Outcome

The court adopts the assessment of the DOSHS and orders the respondents to pay the reduced compensation of Ksh 2,610,000.

Orders

  • The court adopts the assessment of the DOSHS and orders the respondents to pay the reduced compensation of Ksh 2,610,000

Remedies

  • Payment of Ksh 2,610,000

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Work Injury Benefits Act (WIBA)
  • Employment Act, 2007
Cases cited (1)
  • Ruth Wambui Mwangi & another v Alfarah Wholesalers Limited [2017] eKLR
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case