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

Kitoo v Apex Steel Limited (Cause E868 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 528 (KLR) (3 March 2023) (Ruling)

[2023] KEELRC 528 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
528
Citation
[2023] KEELRC 528 (KLR)
Decided
3 March 2023
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

TypeWork Injury CompensationPosturePreliminary ObjectionCoramBOM MANANI
The ELRC has no original jurisdiction to entertain work injury claims. The court can only entertain an appeal from the Director's decision under section 52(2) of the Work Injury Benefits Act (WIBA).

Facts

The Claimant, Nicholas Mbui Kitoo, was employed as a Tongsman by the Respondent, Apex Steel Limited. On 22nd October 2019, he sustained an injury while on duty. He reported the accident through his Advocates' letter dated 8th January 2021, but the Director of Occupational Safety and Health has not acted on the report.

Issues

  • Jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) over work injury claims
  • Procedure for challenging the Director's decision

Reasoning

The court determined that the WIBA requires the first step in processing a work injury claim to be reporting to the Director's office. The court ruled that the ELRC's jurisdiction is appellate, not original, and that the Director's failure to act on the report does not constitute a decision capable of triggering an appeal.

Outcome

The court dismissed the claim, finding that the ELRC has no original jurisdiction to hear the case.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Work Injury Benefits Act (WIBA)
Cases cited (1)
  • Elrc Cause No E693 of 2021 - Ezekiel Ombaso Onchieku China Communications Construction Company Limited (unreported)
⚠ 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