Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedE042 of 2024

Cheruyiot v Solar Panda Kenya Limited (Appeal E042 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 605 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
28 February 2025
JRJAMES RIKA
834 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan worker's appeal to enforce a work injury award failed because his appeal documents were defective and a pending objection had to be resolved first by the Director.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru against a ruling of the Chief Magistrate's Court which had declined to adopt, as its judgment, an award of Kshs. 827,567 made by the Director under the Work Injury Benefits Act, 2007 to Joseph Kibe Cheruyiot for a work injury sustained in his employment with Solar Panda Kenya Limited. The Trial Court had found that although an objection to the Director's assessment existed, it was filed late, and that it was for the Director to determine how the late objection would be dealt with; the Trial Court could not therefore overlook the pending objection and adopt the award. On appeal, the Court first found the Record of Appeal defective: the Index bore the wrong appeal number and entirely different parties, and the table of contents lacked correct details of the parties, the decision appealed against, the trial court and magistrate, and the correct case number, contrary to Rule 15(3)(a) of the E&LRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Bwana Mohamed Bwana, the Court held it could not exercise adjudicatory powers over an incompetent and defective appeal. On the merits, the Court held that both parties acknowledged an objection pending before the Director; whether it was filed outside the 60-day WIBA period and whether it was valid were matters for the Director. Relying on the doctrine of exhaustion as articulated by the Supreme Court in United Millers Limited, the Court held the Trial Court had not erred. The appeal was declined, the parties were referred back to the Directorate of Occupational Safety and Health, the appellant was granted liberty to renew his application once the Director ruled on the objection, and no order was made on costs.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Record of Appeal is defective
  2. 2.Whether the Trial Court erred in finding that there was an objection pending before the Directorate, and that it could therefore not adopt the Director's award as its own Judgment

Key legal issues

#
01

Defective Record of Appeal

Holding

The Record of Appeal was defective: the Index bore the wrong appeal number and different parties, and the table of contents lacked correct party details, the correct Ruling/Order appealed against, the correct Court and Magistrate, and the correct trial case number, contrary to Rule 15(3)(a) of the E&LRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024.

Reasoning

Rule 15(3)(a) of the E&LRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024 requires a table of contents in the Record of Appeal. The appellant's table of contents lacked the correct parties, decision appealed against, trial court, magistrate and case number. Relying on the Supreme Court in Bwana Mohamed Bwana, a court cannot exercise adjudicatory powers over an incompetent and defective appeal.

p. 2
02

Adoption of the Director's WIBA award and the doctrine of exhaustion

Holding

The Trial Court did not err in declining to adopt the Director's award where an objection (albeit late) remained pending before the Director; the validity and timeliness of the objection are for the Director, and parties must exhaust the statutory mechanism.

Reasoning

Both parties acknowledged an objection was pending before the Director. Whether it was filed outside the 60-day WIBA period and whether it is valid are for the Director. The court followed United Millers Limited on deference to statutory dispute resolution bodies and the Anyona decision remitting a similar matter to the Director. The Trial Court properly upheld the doctrine of exhaustion.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A Court cannot exercise its adjudicatory powers where an Appeal is incompetent and defective.
  • Where an alternative statutory dispute resolution mechanism exists, courts must exercise restraint and defer to the statutorily mandated bodies in the first instance (doctrine of exhaustion).
  • Whether an objection under WIBA was filed within the 60-day period, and whether it is valid, are matters for the Director to determine.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Record of Appeal is defective.
  2. 2.The Appeal is declined.
  3. 3.Parties are referred back to the Directorate of Occupational Safety and Health, who shall determine whether there is a valid objection before him, and whether he should reassess the award granted to the Appellant.
  4. 4.The Appellant may renew his Application before the Trial Court, once the Director has ruled on the objection.
  5. 5.No order on the costs.

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

JR
majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court
Miscellaneous Application (number not stated on the Record of Appeal; Index erroneously shows E035 of 2023)
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and the E&LRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024 (specific provision not stated in the judgment)

Relief refused

#

The Appeal against the Trial Court's Ruling

The Record of Appeal was defective and the Trial Court did not err in declining to adopt the Director's award while an objection was pending before the Directorate

p. 2

Costs

No order on the 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 Record of Appeal is defective.
p. 3final orders - defect in Record of Appeal
The Appeal is declined.
p. 3final orders - dismissal of appeal
Parties are referred back to the Directorate of Occupational Safety and Health, who shall determine whether there is a valid objection before him, and whether he should reassess the award granted to the Appellant.
p. 3final orders - remission to the Directorate
Whether it was filed outside the 60-day period under WIBA, and whether there is a valid objection, are matters for the Director to determine.
p. 2WIBA objections - mandate of the Director
The Appellant may renew his Application before the Trial Court, once the Director has ruled on the objection.
p. 3final orders - liberty to renew application

Issues in the judgment

#
material

The Record of Appeal's Index shows a different appeal number and different parties from the Memorandum of Appeal

minor

The judgment states the appellant pursued work injury benefit at the 'Directorate of Occupational Health and Safety Services' but the final orders refer to the 'Directorate of Occupational Safety and Health'

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Cheruyiot v Solar Panda Kenya Limited (Appeal E042 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 605 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). E042 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/605/eng@2025-02-28

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.