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

Ngesa v Mahesh & Tirth Construction Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application e287 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 702 (KLR) (12 March 2026) (Ruling)

[2026] KEELRC 702 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
702
Citation
[2026] KEELRC 702 (KLR)
Decided
12 March 2026
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

TypeMiscellaneous ApplicationPostureRespondent/Applicant seeks review of DOSH awardCoramONESMUS MAKAU
The court lacks jurisdiction to review the DOSH award as the statutory procedures for challenging it were not followed.

Facts

The applicant (Ngesa) filed a motion alleging that the delay in filing a response to the respondent's motion was inadvertent. He claims that the Assistant Director's percentage for permanent incapacity was incorrect, based on an initial medical assessment indicating 0% incapacity.

Issues

  • Whether the court has jurisdiction to review a DOSH award that was not appealed or objected to under the Work Injury Benefits Act.
  • Whether the applicant has met the legal threshold for review orders.
  • Who should bear the costs of the application.

Reasoning

The court found that the applicant did not object to the DOSH award within the 60-day period and that the statutory framework for challenging DOSH awards is mandatory and exclusive.

Outcome

The application is dismissed with costs.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Section 51 and 52 of WIBA
Cases cited (2)
  • Charles v Cheto (Civil Appeal E046 of 2022) [2025] KECA 784 (KLR)
  • Mutuku v Excel Chemicals Limited (Miscellaneous Application E174 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1035 (KLR)
⚠ 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