Farmland Aviation Limited v Kiptoo (Civil Appeal 45 of 2020) [2024] KECA 1792 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal upheld a Kshs.6 million-plus injury award, confirming workers can claim full damages even after receiving statutory work injury compensation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the assessment of damages followed due procedure (the sole issue framed by the Court)
- 2.Whether the learned Judge properly assessed the damages awarded to the respondent
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the ELRC to award common law damages
The ELRC's jurisdiction under Section 12 is not limited to awards under the ELRC Act; it extends to damages under any other written law and common law.
The Court adopted its own holding in Paramount Bank v Vaqvi Syed Qamara that Section 12 empowers the ELRC to hear all employment disputes and to award compensation or damages contemplated under the Act or any other written law. The word 'including' in Section 12(1) shows the list is not exhaustive. Further, the matter had been remitted by this very Court for assessment of damages, confirming jurisdiction.
Whether the assessment of general damages was proper
The award of Kshs.4,000,000 general damages was properly assessed; comparable injuries attract comparable awards, with regard to inflation and economic conditions.
Applying the settled principles in Mohamed Mahmoud Jabane, Southern Engineering, Mbaka Nguru and Stanley Maore, the Court found the Judge properly evaluated the medical evidence, cited comparable authorities, and considered the current value of the shilling and the economy. Interference is not warranted absent misapprehension of evidence or wrong principle.
Award of future medical expenses without conclusive evidence of the specific amount
Failure to adduce evidence of the specific amount was not fatal; the need for future medication was pleaded and supported by evidence.
Citing Kenya Bus Services Ltd v Gituma and Mbaka Nguru, the Court held that once the need for future medical care is pleaded and evidence led, the claimant need only plead an approximate sum; the exact amount depends on matters such as place and timing of treatment. The respondent's blindness and need for a cornea transplant were evident.
Duty of a first appellate court
A first appellate court must re-evaluate, re-assess and re-analyse the evidence and reach its own conclusions.
Relying on Abok James Odera and Rule 31(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, the Court restated its primary role on first appeal, and Mwangi v Wambugu on when an appellate court may interfere with findings of fact.
Legal principles established
#- The ELRC has jurisdiction, under Section 12, to award compensation or damages in circumstances contemplated under the Act or any other written law; its jurisdiction to award common law damages is not limited to awards under the ELRC Act.
- Compensation paid under the Workmen Compensation Act/Work Injury Benefits Act does not bar a claim for damages available under any other law.
- Future medical expenses must be pleaded and proved, but once need for future medication is pleaded, the claimant need only plead an approximate sum, and absence of specific evidence of the exact amount is not fatal.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed for lack of merit
- 2.Costs of the appeal and of the suit before the trial court awarded to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Employment & Labour Relations Court
- At Nakuru (number not stated); assessment of damages following Civil Appeal No. 269 of 2012
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal under the Court of Appeal Rules (Rule 31(1)); dispute arising under Article 162(2) & (3) of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Relief refused
#Appellant's invitation to interfere with the award of general damages (Kshs.4,000,000) and future medical expenses (Kshs.2,000,000)
The learned Judge properly evaluated the injuries, referred to comparable awards, accounted for inflation and the economy; no basis to interfere
Argument that compensation already paid under the Workmen Compensation Act/Work Injury Benefits Act should bar or be deducted from the common law claim
The statutory compensation award is not a bar to claiming damages under any other law
Costs
Costs of this appeal and the suit before the trial court are awarded to the respondent (costs following the event). No order that each party bear their own costs.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In the exercise of that jurisdiction, the court has the power to award compensation or damages in any circumstances contemplated under the Act or any other written law and to grant any other appropriate relief that it may deem fit.
Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the award of general damages at Kshs.4,000,000.
Consequently, we find that the appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed.
As costs follow the event. The costs of this appeal and the suit before the trial court are awarded to the respondent.
the award under the Workmen Compensation Act and the Work Injury Benefits Act was not a bar to any claimant injured while at work from claiming an award of damages available under any other law
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not print the parties' names, case number or the trial judge's name in the excerpt provided; the coram shows only initials ('M. WARSAME', 'F. OCHIENG', 'J. MATIVO'), so full names cannot be verified from this text.
The judgment describes the appeal as being from 'the judgment of the Court' in relation to the assessment, while the assessment was in fact by the trial court (ELRC), creating slight ambiguity about the decision under review.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Vision Institute of Professionals Ltd v Maubi & 4 others (Civil Appeal E804 of 2024) [2026] KECA 951 (KLR)[2026] KECA 951 (KLR)15 May 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Farmland Aviation Limited v Kiptoo (Civil Appeal 45 of 2020) [2024] KECA 1792 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Civil Appeal (first appeal on assessment of damages, from ELRC at Nakuru; prior appeal being Civil Appeal No. 269 of 2012). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/1792/eng@2024-12-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.