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

Wabomba v Kartar Singh Dhupar & Co Ltd (Civil Appeal E375 of 2020) [2025] KEHC 3977 (KLR) (Civ) (27 March 2025) (Judgment)

[2025] KEHC 3977 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
3977
Citation
[2025] KEHC 3977 (KLR)
Decided
27 March 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from a ruling and order made by Hon. E.M. Kagoni (Mr.) (PM) in Milimani CMCC No. 2259 of 2013
Holding

The court held that the law applicable to the work injury claim as at the time the claim was filed was the Work Injury Benefits Act (WIBA), as the Court of Appeal's decision in Attorney General v Law Society of Kenya & another (2017) deprived original jurisdiction of WIBA claims from the courts in the first instance and placed such jurisdiction in the Director.

Facts

Domiano Wabomba filed a suit against Kartar Singh Dhupar & Co Ltd alleging breach of contract and/or statutory duty of care due to an employer-employee relationship. The Respondent denied the key averments in the plaint and challenged the competency of the suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned trial magistrate was correct in his finding that the Appellant's suit was fatal and incompetent, and deserving of an order striking it out.

Reasoning

The court applied the principles of appellate courts not interfering with findings of fact unless based on no evidence or wrong principles, and reviewed the law applicable to the case as per the Court of Appeal's decisions.

Outcome

Affirmed the order striking out the Appellant's suit.

Orders

  • Order striking out the Appellant's suit

Authorities cited

Cases cited (2)
  • Attorney General v Law Society of Kenya & another
  • Petition No. 4 of 2019
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case