Kinoti v One Acre Fund (Miscellaneous Application E007 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1366 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that a 'without prejudice' discharge voucher doesn't block an injured worker's compensation claim, but the amount already paid is deducted.
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 court has jurisdiction to determine the application
- 2.Whether the discharge voucher signed by the applicant bars her from further claims against the respondent
- 3.Whether the orders sought should be granted
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the ELRC over WIBA matters
The court held it has jurisdiction because a WIBA claim is founded on an employment relationship
The respondent argued the court lacked original jurisdiction over WIBA matters. The court drew on its prior holdings, reasoning that WIBA claims arise from employment relationships between employer and employee, which fall squarely within the court's unlimited mandate over employment and labour relations disputes. The question was therefore answered in the affirmative.
Whether the discharge voucher bars further claims
The discharge voucher did not bar the claim because it was made on a 'without prejudice' basis and was inadmissible, and amounted only to a conditional settlement
Although the Court of Appeal in Trinity Prime Investment Ltd held that execution of a discharge voucher constitutes a complete contract binding unless vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation, the court distinguished it: the voucher here was on a 'without prejudice' basis, was thus inadmissible, and payment received under it was deemed conditional, so no complete settlement contract arose.
Whether the orders sought should be granted
The application was allowed as prayed, subject to deduction of the Kshs.101,397 already paid
Having found jurisdiction and that the discharge voucher did not constitute a binding settlement, the court allowed the application as prayed. However, the court moderated the relief by directing that the decreed sum be paid less the amount already paid under the discharge voucher, effectively crediting the respondent for that payment.
Legal principles established
#- The ELRC has jurisdiction to determine WIBA claims since they are founded on the employment relationship
- A discharge voucher marked 'without prejudice' is inadmissible and does not constitute a binding settlement agreement
Court orders
#- 1.The application is allowed as prayed
- 2.The compensation award of Kshs.642,265.50 by the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services is decreed payable to the claimant, less the sum of Kshs.101,397 already paid on the basis of the Discharge Voucher
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Jurisdiction over employment and labour relations disputes under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (WIBA claim founded on employment relationship)
Relief refused
#Full sum of Kshs.642,265.50 without deduction
The decreed sum is to be paid less the Kshs.101,397 already paid under the discharge voucher
Costs
Costs of the application to be paid by the Respondent (allowed as prayed in the motion)
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.
this court has unlimited jurisdiction to determine all disputes involving Employment and Labour Relations. A claim founded on WIBA is obviously founded on an employment relationship between an employer and an employee
the Discharge voucher in the instant case was on a “without prejudice” basis and therefore not admissible. Even if payment was made and received, the same is deemed to have been done on without prejudice basis
I allow the application as prayed but the decreed sum shall be paid less the sum of Kshs.101,397 paid on the basis of the said Discharge Voucher
Issues in the judgment
#Inconsistent gender pronouns for the applicant within the judgment (both 'she' and 'he')
The discharge voucher is said to be dated 19th September 2023 but signed on 13th May 2024, an unexplained gap; also described as signed by an 'unnamed Insured Beneficiary'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kinoti v One Acre Fund (Miscellaneous Application E007 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1366 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1366/eng@2025-05-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.