Opondo v Dodia & another (Petition E154 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1317 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court struck out a worker's petition because it lacked evidence and precision, and her workplace injury claim belongs before the WIBA Director instead.
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 respondents violated the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 28, 31, 35 and 41 of the Constitution
- 2.Whether the petition met the standard of precision and pleading set in Anarita Karimi Njeru and Rule 10(2) of the Mutunga Rules
- 3.Whether the Court has jurisdiction to determine the claim for compensation for workplace injury under the Work Injury Benefits Act, 2007
- 4.Whether the petitioner proved unlawful and unfair termination
Key legal issues
#Precision in constitutional pleadings and constitutional avoidance
The petition failed the Anarita Karimi Njeru precision test and fell within the constitutional avoidance principle, as it was essentially an ordinary unfair termination action dressed as a petition.
The Court held that although the petitioner claimed violations of Articles 28, 31, 35 and 41, she did not particularise the facts supporting the alleged violations and supplied no evidence. The substance of the dispute was an ordinary claim for unfair termination in an oral employment relationship requiring testimony, which the petition did not provide. The Court therefore applied the doctrine of constitutional avoidance rather than adjudicating the rights claims.
Jurisdiction over WIBA compensation claims
The Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a claim for compensation for workplace injury which ought to be determined by the Director under the Work Injury Benefits Act, 2007.
The petitioner claimed Kshs 500,000 as compensation for disablement arising from a hand injury sustained at work on 09.07.2024. The Court held that such compensation is for determination by the Director under the Work Injury Benefits Act, 2007, and that the cause of action was outside the Court's jurisdiction as pleaded in the petition. The petitioner was nonetheless left free to pursue the pending compensation under the Act.
Proof of unfair termination
The petitioner failed to prove unfair termination as she offered no evidence of the circumstances of the alleged separation.
Although the respondents admitted an employment relationship, the petitioner gave no evidence supporting her stated date of employment or the circumstances of the alleged verbal termination following her injury. The Court noted that where the employment relationship is said to be oral, testimony was required for it to decide the unfairness question either way. Absent such evidence, the termination claim could not succeed.
Legal principles established
#- A constitutional petition alleging violation of fundamental rights must particularise the facts supporting the alleged violations; a dispute properly an ordinary employment action is subject to constitutional avoidance
- Compensation claims for workplace injury must first be determined by the Director under the Work Injury Benefits Act, 2007, and the ELRC lacks jurisdiction over that cause of action as pleaded
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is struck out
- 2.Parties to bear their own costs of the petition
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Jurisdiction invoked under Articles 28, 31, 35 and 41 of the Constitution; the Court found it lacked jurisdiction over the WIBA compensation claim
Relief refused
#Declaration of violation of Articles 28, 31, 35 and 41
Petitioner failed to particularise the facts supporting the alleged violations and provided no evidence; constitutional avoidance applied
Compensation for workplace injury under WIBA
Claim ought to have been determined by the Director under the Work Injury Benefits Act, 2007; Court lacks jurisdiction
Compensation for unfair termination, notice pay, service pay, leave and statutory deductions
Petitioner offered no evidence on the circumstances of the alleged unfair termination; oral employment dispute required testimony
Costs
Parties to bear their own costs of the petition
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.
While the petitioner prays that her fundamental rights and freedoms have been violated, she has not particularised the facts supporting the alleged violations and no evidence has been provided.
The petition is trapped by the principle of constitutional avoidance.
The claim for compensation for injury as claimed and prayed for ought to have been determined by the Director under Work Injury Benefits Act, 2007 and the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain that cause of action.
In conclusion the petition is hereby struck out with orders parties to bear own costs of the petition.
Issues in the judgment
#The parties, case number and citation are not identified in the judgment text; the parties are referred to only as 'the petitioner' and 'the respondents', though the replying affidavit names Kajal Dodia.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Opondo v Dodia & another (Petition E154 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1317 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1317/eng@2025-05-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.