Kinoti v One Acre Fund (Miscellaneous Application E007 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1366 (KLR) (9 May 2025) (Ruling)
- Court
- Employment & Labour Relations Court
- Case number
- 1366
- Citation
- [2025] KEELRC 1366 (KLR)
- Decided
- 9 May 2025
Summary at a glance
TypeMiscellaneous ApplicationPostureRespondent opposed the application, but admitted the occurrence of the accident.CoramON MAKAU
The court has jurisdiction to determine the application.
Facts
The applicant was employed by the respondent as a Field Officer for over 4 years. She was injured on 25th June 2022 and assessed to have 25% permanent incapacity. The respondent failed to pay the assessed damages, leading to the application.
Issues
- Whether the court has jurisdiction to determine the application.
- Whether the discharge signed by the applicant bars her from further claims against the respondent.
- Whether the orders sought should be granted.
Reasoning
The court has unlimited jurisdiction to determine all disputes involving Employment and Labour Relations. The discharge voucher was on a 'without prejudice' basis and therefore not admissible.
Outcome
The applicant's application was granted.
Orders
- That this Honourable Court be pleased to make a declaration that the Respondent pay the claimant the award amount of Kshs.642,265.50 being the compensation award by the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services to the Claimant.
- That the compensation of Kshs.642,265.50 by the Director of Occupational Safety and Health services to the claimant be adopted as the Judgment of this court.
- That costs of the application be paid by the Respondent.
- Interest on prayer 2 and 3 above.
Remedies
- Declaration that the Respondent pay the claimant the award amount of Kshs.642,265.50.
- Adoption of the compensation of Kshs.642,265.50 by the Director of Occupational Safety and Health services as the Judgment of this court.
- Payment of costs of the application by the Respondent.
- Interest on prayer 2 and 3 above.
Authorities cited
⚠ 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.
Loading judgment…