Gachuhi v Eagle 1 Concrete & Machineries Limited; Directorate of Occupational Safety and Health Services (Interested Party) (Petition E010 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 518 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed it can hear constitutional petitions against employers who refuse to follow the work injury compensation law.
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 petition violated the doctrine of Constitutional avoidance
- 2.Whether the court has jurisdiction to determine the petition notwithstanding the Employment Act and WIBA alternative remedies
Key legal issues
#Whether the petition violated the doctrine of constitutional avoidance
No - the petition is not a mere contractual claim clothed in Bill of Rights language; it seeks enforcement of rights under Articles 27, 28, 41 and 47 arising from the employer's refusal to comply with WIBA
The court followed Boniface Orubia Wasika v Cadell Construction Co (De)LLC, where Ongaya J held on materially similar facts that a petition to compel an employer's voluntary submission to WIBA processes is not a compensation claim but one to enforce the Act and secure fundamental freedoms. The respondent did not demonstrate any reason to depart from that decision.
Legal principles established
#- A petition seeking to compel an employer to comply with statutory obligations under WIBA and to enforce Bill of Rights freedoms is not barred by the doctrine of constitutional avoidance and is properly before the ELRC
Court orders
#- 1.Preliminary objection dated 8th July 2024 dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 41 and 47 of the Constitution (enforcement of Bill of Rights in employment dispute); Gazette Notice No. 6024 jurisdictional threshold raised by respondent
Relief refused
#Respondent's prayer for striking out/dismissal of the petition with costs
Court found no merit in the preliminary objection; petitioner raised serious allegations of violation of rights warranting determination by the court
Costs
Preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the petitioner
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.
I am satisfied that the petitioner has made serious allegations of violation of rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the constitution, which warrant determination by this court.
The issue is not about assessment of compensation for work related injury but the conduct of the employer who refuses to comply with express provisions of the law that regulates compensation of occupational injuries outside the courts of law.
In view of the reasons highlighted above, I find no merits in the respondents preliminary objection and hereby dismiss it with costs.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gachuhi v Eagle 1 Concrete & Machineries Limited; Directorate of Occupational Safety and Health Services (Interested Party) (Petition E010 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 518 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in excerpt (petition dated 20th June 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/518/eng@2025-02-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.