Nassoro v DM Concrete (K) Limited & another (Cause E003 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 1924 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan worker turned a DOSH compensation award into a court judgment worth Kshs. 642,750 after the employer missed its window to appeal.
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 Court has jurisdiction to adopt the DOSH award as a judgment of the Court
- 2.Whether there is an enforceable determination of the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services
- 3.Whether the claim is statute time barred under Part XII of the Employment Act
- 4.Whether the 2nd respondent was properly enjoined
Key legal issues
#Whether the DOSH award could be adopted as a judgment of the Court
Yes, as against the 1st respondent only, since the objection and appeal periods under WIBA had lapsed without challenge
The applicant was injured in the course of employment on 12th June 2019; DOSH assessed compensation at Kshs. 642,750/-. The respondents did not prefer an appeal within the 60-day period prescribed by WIBA, nor object. The Court held that with the statutory objection and appeal periods lapsed, the applicant was entitled to adoption of the award as judgment, paving way for execution.
Whether the 2nd respondent was properly joined
No; only the 1st respondent, identified as the employer in the DOSH assessment records, was properly suited
The Court found no reason shown for enjoining the 2nd respondent. The assessment records identified the employer as the 1st respondent. In absence of other material, only the 1st respondent was properly suited; the claim against the 2nd respondent therefore lacked factual foundation.
Whether the claim was time barred and the Court lacked jurisdiction
The respondents' objections on time barring and want of jurisdiction failed
The respondents urged that the Court lacked jurisdiction under WIBA and that the claim was time barred under Part XII of the Employment Act. The Court found no good justification shown for either objection and proceeded to adopt the DOSH award.
Legal principles established
#- Where the statutory periods for objections and appeals under WIBA have lapsed without challenge, the DOSH award may be adopted as a judgment of the Court
Court orders
#- 1.The award by the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services (DOSH) dated 14th November 2022 adopted as a judgment of the Court, with a decree to issue for Kshs. 642,750/= payable by the 1st respondent by 01.09.2024, failing which interest to run at Court rates from the date of filing the proceedings until full payment
- 2.The 1st respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings; the respondents to bear their own costs
- 3.The Deputy Registrar to return the case file to Machakos Sub-Registry forthwith within three days
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 87 of the Employment Act, Cap 226; section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act, 2011; Rules 28 and 31 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016; section 26 of the Work Injury Benefits Act, Cap 236
Relief refused
#Adoption of the DOSH award as against the 2nd respondent
No shown reason why the 2nd respondent was enjoined; the assessment records show the employer was the 1st respondent
Costs
The 1st respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings and the respondents to bear 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.
The award by the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services (DOSH) dated 14th November 2022 is hereby adopted as a judgment of the Court and a decree accordingly to issue for the awarded sum of Kshs. 642,750/= payable to the applicant by the 1st respondent by 01.09.2024 failing interest to run thereon at Court rates from the date of filing the proceedings until full payment.
the period prescribed under WIBA for objections and then appeals has lapsed. The applicant is entitled to adoption of the award as against the 1st respondent accordingly.
In absence of any other material the Court returns that only the 1st respondent was properly suited.
The respondents urged time barring and want of jurisdiction but no good justification has been shown in those respects.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nassoro v DM Concrete (K) Limited & another (Cause E003 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 1924 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Originating Summons dated 01.03.2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1924/eng@2024-07-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.