Ainea v Haraka Enterprises Limited (Miscellaneous Civil Application E057 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 985 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment and Labour Relations Court cannot enforce Work Injury awards directly; unpaid awardees must return to the Director of Work Injury first.
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 Applicant could invoke the Civil Procedure Act and Civil Procedure Rules to approach the E&LRC for enforcement of a Director of Work Injury award
- 2.Whether the E&LRC has jurisdiction to enforce awards of the Director of Work Injury through Miscellaneous Applications
- 3.Whether the Director's assessment is an administrative decision subject to review/objection under Section 51 of the Work Injury Benefits Act
Key legal issues
#Wholesale invocation of the Civil Procedure Act and Rules before the E&LRC
Improper; the E&LRC is governed by its own Act and Procedure Rules, and the Civil Procedure Rules apply only to the extent stated in the E&LRC Procedure Rules
The Court held it exercises a specialized jurisdiction inherited from the Industrial Court, not civil jurisdiction. Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act defines the Court as the High Court or subordinate court in civil jurisdiction. The E&LRC Procedure Rules 2024 (Rule 45, Rule 73para 2) only permit limited application of Civil Procedure Rules, so invoking Sections 1A, 1B, 3A CPA and Order 51 Rule 1 wholesale is out of place.
Enforcement of Director of Work Injury awards by the E&LRC
The E&LRC's role under WIBA is confined to hearing appeals from the Director's decision on objection; it cannot execute the Director's awards
The WIBA regime, created by tripartite partners with ILO support, contemplates minimal judicial intervention. Enforcement is the Director's mandate, including through criminal prosecution of defaulting employers under Section 26. The Court's role is limited to hearing appeals under Section 52(2) after objection proceedings. Rule 69 of the 2024 Rules cannot cure this, as rules cannot confer jurisdiction.
Nature of the Director's assessment and the proper avenue for grievances
The Director's assessment is an administrative decision; objection under Section 51 is a review mechanism under Section 4(3) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, open to both parties including the awardee
Both parties were dissatisfied with the award - the Applicant because it was unpaid, the Respondent claiming it was unheard and lacking documentation. The Court found they had presented a belated objection to the Court. The proper course was for the parties to return to the Director, who has review and enforcement jurisdiction, including vailing documents to the insurer and summoning it.
Legal principles established
#- A court cannot expand its jurisdiction through judicial craft or innovation; jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or statute
- Subsidiary legislation (Court Rules) cannot create, expand or limit the Court's jurisdiction under a substantive Act
- The Director of Work Injury has review and enforcement jurisdiction over his own award, including through objection proceedings, which are open to both the awardee and the employer
Court orders
#- 1.The Application dated 31st October 2024 is referred to the Director of Work Injury
- 2.The Affidavits filed by the respective parties in this Application shall be treated as an objection filed before the Director of Work Injury
- 3.The Director Work Injury shall hear the parties and grant such orders or reliefs as he may deem fit
- 4.Parties are at liberty to return to this Court on Appeal, if necessary, as stipulated under the Work Injury Benefits Act, within 30 days of receiving the Director's decision
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, Cap 234 B; Work Injury Benefits Act, 2007 (Sections 51, 52); Article 159 of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Order compelling the Respondent to pay Kshs. 724,992 awarded by the Director with interest at 14% per annum
The Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce awards of the Director of Work Injury through Miscellaneous Applications; the parties ought to canvass their objections before the Director
Costs
No costs order made in the judgment
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.
There is no room for awardees to file Miscellaneous Applications, or full-blown Claims before the E&LRC, seeking execution of awards of the Director.
The Rules are subsidiary legislation. They do not create, expand or limit the jurisdiction of the Court, under the Work Injury Benefits Act, or any other Act.
a. The Application dated 31st October 2024 is referred to the Director of Work Injury.
b. The Afidavits filed by the respective parties in this Application shall be treated as an objection filed before the Director of Work Injury.
d. Parties are at liberty to return to this Court on Appeal, if necessary, as stipulated under the Work Injury Benefits Act, within 30 days of receiving the Director’s decision.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ainea v Haraka Enterprises Limited (Miscellaneous Civil Application E057 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 985 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Miscellaneous Application dated 31st October 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/985/eng@2025-03-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.