Arunda v Attorney General & 2 others; Law Society of Kenya (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E090 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2999 (KLR) (16 October 2025) (Judgment)

Summary at a glance

Facts

The petitioner, Harry Stephen Arunda, filed a petition against the Respondents seeking declarations and cost of the petition. The Law Society of Kenya joined the suit as an interested party.

Issues

• Whether Director of Work Injury benefits is an administrator with quasi-judicial authority.
• Whether the procedure for institution of complaint for injury compensation under the Work Injury Benefits Act conforms to principles of natural justice.
• Whether personal injury in the course of employment is an administrative matter to be decided by a quasi-judicial authority.
• Whether the Director of Work Injury Benefits is clothed with discretionary powers in his quasi-judicial function.
• Whether section 10(3) of the WIBA raises questions/issues of negligence under the law of torts thus cannot be heard and determined by the Director who is not trained and statutorily qualified to practice law.
• Whether the original jurisdiction of the Director of Work Injury Benefits is constitutional.
• Whether section 10(3), 21, 22(1), 24(1)(2), 25(1) of WIBA contravene Article 25(c), 47, 50(1) and 50(2)(i) of the Constitution.
• Whether DOSH 1 and DOSH 4 forms under WIBA are unconstitutional.
• Whether section 10(3) of WIBA contravenes Articles 10(2), 47 and 50(1) of the Constitution.

Reasoning

The court found that the Director of Work Injury Benefits is not a quasi-judicial authority and that the procedure for filing complaints does not comply with natural justice principles.

Outcome

The court declared that the Director of Work Injury Benefits is not an administrator with quasi-judicial authority and that the procedure for institution of complaint for injury compensation under the Work Injury Benefits Act does not conform to principles of natural justice.

Authorities cited