Omari v Kenya Ports Authority (Miscellaneous Application E025 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1068 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employer that ignored a worker injury compensation award for Ksh. 3.79 million must now pay it in full, because it never legally objected.
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 DOSH award of 2 November 2023 for Ksh. 3,792,227.73 should be adopted as the judgment of the court
- 2.Whether the respondent settled the award through a second assessment by Dr. Salim K. Noorani and payment of Ksh. 1,997,475
- 3.Whether an employer may unilaterally obtain a second medical assessment outside the objection and appeal machinery in Section 52 of WIBA and Section 23 inquiries
Key legal issues
#Enforceability of an unsatisfied DOSH award as a judgment of the court
The DOSH award of 2 November 2023 was adopted as the judgment of the court for Ksh. 3,792,227.73, since no objection or appeal was filed within the statutory machinery under Section 52 of WIBA.
The court found that the DOSH award was issued and notice given to the respondent, who neither objected nor appealed under Sections 52(1) and 52(2) of WIBA. The employer's unilateral second assessment by Dr. Noorani was never submitted to DOSH for reconciliation and review. Absent any statutory objection, the award remained due and enforceable, warranting adoption as the court's judgment.
Whether the respondent proved payment or part payment of the award
The court found no evidence of payment or part payment; the payment voucher exhibited was not for the applicant and a voucher is not proof of transmission of funds.
The respondent alleged settlement via a payment voucher of Ksh. 1,997,475 based on a reduced 20% incapacity assessment by Dr. Noorani. The court observed that the attached voucher dated 13 February 2024 was not in the applicant's favour and that a payment voucher is not final evidence of transmission of funds. The award of Ksh. 3,792,227.73 therefore remained unsettled.
Legal principles established
#- An employer aggrieved by a DOSH award must file an objection or appeal under Section 52(1) or 52(2) of WIBA; it cannot unilaterally adopt a second medical assessment outside the statutory process
- Compensation for work-related injuries can only arise under WIBA; Section 16 of WIBA is mandatory and excludes liability outside the Act
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 14 February 2025 is allowed
- 2.The sum of Ksh. 3,792,227 being the Director's award made on 2 November 2023 is awarded
- 3.The respondent shall pay within 30 days from the date of the judgment, after which the same shall accrue costs from the date of the judgment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Enforcement of an award under the Work Injury Benefits Act (WIBA), in particular Sections 16, 23 and 52 of WIBA
Relief refused
#Interest on the award compounded annually at court rates from the date of the award until payment in full
The court instead provided that costs accrue from the date of judgment if payment is not made within 30 days; the interest prayer was not expressly granted in the final orders
Costs
The judgment provides that if the respondent fails to pay within 30 days, costs shall accrue from the date of the judgment; no other express costs order was made.
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 application dated 14 February 2025 is hereby allowed. The following orders are hereby issued;
The sum of Ksjh.3,792,227 being the Director’s award made on 2 November 2023 is hereby awarded;
The respondent shall pay within 30 days from the date hereof, after which the same shall accrue costs from the date of the judgment.
Upon the DOSH's assessment, an aggrieved employer is allowed to file objections or an appeal under the provisions of Section 52(1) or file an appeal to the court under Section 52(2) of the WIBA.
Issues in the judgment
#The citation treatment of Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General & another [2019] KESC 16 (KLR) is ambiguous: it appears in a paragraph that reads as the court's own reasoning, but the passage is phrased as supporting propositions 'as held in' earlier authorities; recorded as court-cited.
The judgment does not state the case number, neutral citation, or the parties' names, using only 'applicant' and 'respondent'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Omari v Kenya Ports Authority (Miscellaneous Application E025 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1068 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1068/eng@2025-04-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.