Austin Oduor Odira v Kenya Sweets Limited & another [2021] KEELRC 1496 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that work injury claims seeking damages beyond a WIBA award must stay in the magistrates' court, not the Employment and Labour Relations Court.
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- 1.Whether the suit CMELRC No.845 of 2018 pending before the Chief Magistrate's Court should be withdrawn and transferred to the ELRC for hearing and determination
- 2.Whether the ELRC is the appropriate forum for the applicant's claims as framed, given the award of the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services under WIBA
Key legal issues
#Whether the ELRC should accept transfer of a suit filed in the magistrates' court where the applicant seeks general and special damages beyond the Director's WIBA award
The application was dismissed; the ELRC is not the appropriate forum for claims framed beyond the Director's award, and transfer would not achieve the desired results
The Director had already assessed and awarded compensation of Kshs.1,720,000. The applicant's plaint claimed general damages, special damages and interest beyond the award. Under WIBA, a dissatisfied party may only appeal under section 52; a claim limited to enforcement of the award is permissible. The applicant filed an ordinary suit, not an enforcement claim or appeal, so transfer to the ELRC would commence a procedure not envisaged under WIBA or the court's Rules. Section 16 of WIBA bars a common-law damages action against the employer.
The scope of section 16 of WIBA and access to courts
Section 16 does not limit access to courts but channels employee claims through the Director's investigation and award, with an appeal mechanism under section 52 to the ELRC
Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General & COTU, the court noted that section 16 read with sections 23 and 52 of WIBA provides legal redress to aggrieved parties from decisions of the Director, and the ELRC can determine all relevant matters arising from those decisions.
Legal principles established
#- Where parties are satisfied with the Director's award under WIBA, the Act has not established an enforcement mechanism, and the ELRC has adopted a purposive approach permitting a claim limited to enforcement of the Director's award; dissatisfaction with the award lies only by way of appeal under section 52
- Section 16 of WIBA bars an employee's action for damages against an employer in respect of an occupational accident save under the Act
Court orders
#- 1.Application dated 14th April, 2021 dismissed
- 2.Parties to be heard before the Chief Magistrate's Court at Nairobi Milimani Commercial Court in Civil Case No.845 of 2018
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3, 12 and 20 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and section 18(b) of the Civil Procedure Act (as cited in the application)
Relief refused
#Transfer of CMELRC No.845 of 2018 from the Chief Magistrate's Court to the ELRC
The court held it was not the appropriate forum for the claims as framed; only an appeal or a claim to enforce the Director's award could be entertained, and a transfer would not yield the desired results in fact or in law
Costs
No costs order recorded in the judgment
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.
Accordingly, application dated 14th April, 2021 is found without merit and is hereby dismissed. parties shall be heard under Chief Magistrates Court at Nairobi Millimani Commercial Court Civil Case No.845 of 2018.
The court being seized of original jurisdiction with regard to employment and labour relations disputes has adopted a purposive approach of parties filing a claim to enforce the decision of the Director.
A transfer of the suit from the lower court to this court would not yield the desired results in fact or in law.
Issues in the judgment
#The application cites 'section 181(b) of the Civil Procedure Act', which does not exist; likely a typographical error for section 18(b)
The judgment inconsistently refers to the suit as CMELRC No.845 of 2018, CMCC No.845 of 2018 and MCELRC No.845 of 2018
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Austin Oduor Odira v Kenya Sweets Limited & another [2021] KEELRC 1496 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Cause CMELRC No.845 of 2018 (application dated 14th April, 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1496/eng@2021-06-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.