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

Cheto v Charles (Cause E005 of 2021) [2022] KEELRC 478 (KLR) (17 March 2022) (Judgment)

[2022] KEELRC 478 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
478
Citation
[2022] KEELRC 478 (KLR)
Decided
17 March 2022
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

TypeClaim to enforce an award under the Work Injury Benefits ActPostureClaimant seeks enforcement of an award made by the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services against the RespondentCoramB. O. M. Manani
The court adopts the Director's award of Ksh. 624,000 and awards interest and costs to the Claimant

Facts

Claimant was employed as a gardener by the Respondent and sustained injuries while pruning trees. The Respondent denies the injury and claims the Claimant was an independent contractor.

Issues

  • Whether the Respondent is obligated to enforce the Director's award
  • Procedural challenges in enforcing the Director's award

Reasoning

The court finds the Respondent not liable for the injury and adopts the Director's award. It dismisses the Respondent's procedural challenges.

Outcome

Claimant wins, Respondent loses

Orders

  • Adopt the Director's award of Ksh. 624,000
  • Award interest on the sum at court rates
  • Grant costs to the Claimant

Remedies

  • Compensation of Ksh. 624,000
  • Interest on the sum at court rates
  • Costs awarded to the Claimant

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Work Injury Benefits Act, 2007
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
⚠ 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