Dennis v Cale Infrastructure Construction Co Ltd & another (Miscellaneous Application E305 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 343 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan worker's injury claim for over Kshs 457,000 collapsed because the court found his medical documents were likely forged.
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 should adopt the Director of Occupational Safety and Health's compensation assessment of Kshs 457,289/28 as judgment
- 2.Whether the documents relied on by the applicant in support of the claim are authentic
Key legal issues
#Whether the Director's compensation assessment should be adopted as judgment
The Motion was dismissed because the documents supporting the claim were found to be unauthentic and possibly forged
Although the Court affirmed its jurisdiction to adopt a DOSH assessment, the Respondent alleged forgery of the records relied on by the applicant. The Mater Hospital Discharge Note showed admission from 6 June to 9 June 2021 without any dental injury recorded, while the applicant claimed he attended Muchatha Healthcare Clinic on 8 June 2021. The Court found it inconceivable the hospital would miss dental injuries and improbable the applicant attended a clinic while admitted, concluding the records were doctored.
Authenticity of the supporting medical documents
The documents were doubtful and possibly fabricated
The To Whom It May Concern note from Muchatha Healthcare Clinic did not disclose when the applicant was attended to, and a search by the Respondent showed the clinic did not exist in the Ministry of Health and Kenya Medical and Practitioners Council portals. The Discharge Note from Mater Hospital contradicted the applicant's account of dental injuries and dates of attendance, undermining the credibility of the claim.
Legal principles established
#- The Employment and Labour Relations Court has jurisdiction to adopt a compensation assessment by the Director, Occupational Safety and Health
- A party seeking adoption of an assessment must establish the authenticity of the supporting documents
Court orders
#- 1.The Motion dated 30 October 2024 is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court to adopt a compensation assessment by the Director, Occupational Safety and Health under the Work Injury Benefits Act
Relief refused
#Adoption of the DOSH assessment in Claim Reference No. WIBA/NRB/00427/2022 as judgment
The authenticity of the documents relied on by the applicant could not be ascertained; they were found doubtful and possibly forged
Judgment for Kshs 457,289/28 against the Respondent
Dismissed with the Motion
Interest on the assessed amount from the date of assessment until payment in full
Dismissed with the Motion
Costs
The Motion dated 30 October 2024 is dismissed with costs to the 1st Respondent.
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.
It is not in doubt that this Court has the jurisdiction to adopt a compensation assessment by the Director, Occupational Safety and Health.
The authenticity of the documents relied on by the applicant cannot be ascertained. They are doubtful and possibly cooked for a purpose.
The Court is wont to believe the Respondent's contention that the applicant has relied on doctored records to claim compensation a second time.
It is the sincere hope of the Court that the practice of ambulance chasing where accident and medical records were manufactured to seek compensation on behalf of people who had not been involved in accidents is not entering the Work Injury Benefits Act arena.
The Motion dated 30 October 2024 is dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number, ELRC cause number or neutral citation anywhere on its face
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Dennis v Cale Infrastructure Construction Co Ltd & another (Miscellaneous Application E305 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 343 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/343/eng@2025-02-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.