Imbugwa v Kapchorua Tea Company Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E042 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 123 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The ELRC ruled that work injury claims filed in Kenyan courts between 2008 and 2019 can still be heard in court, and this worker's suit was reinstated.
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 trial court erred in dismissing the suit on grounds that it lacked jurisdiction to hear WIBA claims filed between 22nd May 2008 and 17th November 2018
- 2.Whether the Chief Justice's practice directions (Gazette Notice No. 5476 of 2023) had legal basis
- 3.Whether the Appellant had a legitimate expectation to have the claim heard to conclusion in court
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of magistrates' courts over WIBA claims filed between 2008 and the Supreme Court decision
The suit filed on 23rd October 2015 was properly before the trial court because the High Court's 2009 declaration of unconstitutionality of key WIBA provisions created a legitimate expectation and the CJ's practice directions direct such claims to proceed in court
The High Court in LSK v AG (2009) declared sections 16, 23(1) and 52 of WIBA unconstitutional, restoring the pre-WIBA position and creating legitimate expectation that claimants could lodge claims directly in court. That position prevailed until the Court of Appeal reversed it, later affirmed by the Supreme Court. The suit, filed on 23rd October 2015, fell within the window covered by the CJ's Gazette Notice No. 5476 of 2023 practice directions, which direct that claims filed after commencement of WIBA but before the Supreme Court decision shall proceed to conclusion in the courts where lodged.
Legal validity of the Chief Justice's practice directions
The practice directions were validly issued and did not contradict the law; they merely clarified the prevailing position
The Respondent argued the CJ's directive had no legal basis. The court held that practice directions aid efficient and timely disposal where there is lack of clarity, and that sections 16 and 17 of the High Court (Organization and Administration) Act 2015 mandate the CJ to issue practice directions and written guidelines to judges and judicial officers. In any event, the circular did not contradict the law but clarified an existing position.
Legal principles established
#- WIBA claims filed after commencement of WIBA but before the Supreme Court decision are to proceed to conclusion before the ELRC or Magistrates' Courts where lodged, per the Chief Justice's practice directions
- A court's judgment or order is presumed valid and binding until set aside, overturned or vacated
- The Chief Justice has statutory authority to issue practice directions under the High Court (Organization and Administration) Act
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed
- 2.Orders issued by the trial court on 28th September 2022 set aside
- 3.Appellant's suit reinstated for hearing before the trial court
- 4.Suit to be heard before a different trial magistrate other than Hon. D. Ocharo
- 5.Appellant awarded costs of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Principal Magistrate's Court at Kapsabet (PMELRC)
- Cause No. 4 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction of the ELRC over appeals from the magistrates' courts in employment matters
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.
Consequently, I allow the Appeal, set aside the orders issued by the trial court on the 28th September 2022 and order the reinstatement of the Appellant’s suit for hearing before the trial court. The suit shall be heard before a difierent trial magistrate other than Hon. D. Ocharo.
Based on the above practice directions, the instant case which was filed before the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court decisions is to proceed before the trial court.
It is a principle of the law that any judgment or order of the court is presumed valid and binding until or unless such decision is either set aside, overturned or vacated.
The Appellant is awarded costs of this Appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#Gazette Notice number and date inconsistently stated: paragraph 8 says 'Gazette Notice Number 5476 of 24th April 2023' while paragraph 20 refers to a 'directive of the Chief Justice dated 23rd April 2023' and paragraph 26 says 'Gazette Notice No. 5476 of 28th April 2023'
Respondent's issue list contains four items though described as 'three issues'
The memorandum of appeal gives inconsistent filing dates for the suit: 'filed on 23rd October, 2015' and 'filed on 12th November, 2015'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Imbugwa v Kapchorua Tea Company Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E042 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 123 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kapsabet PMELRC No. 4 of 2020 (Appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/123/eng@2025-01-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.