Kyalo v DPL Festive Limited & another (Miscellaneous Cause E034 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1410 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to enforce a Kshs 874,422 work injury assessment because the same officer issued two conflicting assessments, and summoned him to explain the discrepancy.
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 should adopt the Director of Occupational Health and Safety assessment of Kshs 874,422/- as an order of the Court and issue a decree for that amount
- 2.How to resolve the inconsistency between two Demands for Payment of Work Injury Benefit assessed by the same officer
Key legal issues
#Enforceability of a WIBA compensation assessment by the Director of Occupational Safety and Health
The Court declined to adopt the assessment as a decree because two conflicting demands for payment had been issued by the same assessing officer, and the genuineness of either demand could not be established on the material before it.
The applicant sought adoption of an assessment of Kshs 874,422/- made on 10 July 2024. The Respondents asserted the documents and award were forgeries, that the first assessment was Kshs 202,038/- with 0% incapacity, and that an appeal to the Director had been rejected. On its own review of the two Demands for Payment, the Court found the first showed 0% permanent disablement with nil assessment while the second showed 20% disablement assessed at Kshs 672,384/-, both signed by the same officer, James Mithanga. Unable to determine which demand was genuine, the Court directed that the assessing officer appear to explain the inconsistency before any adoption.
Liability of the insurer versus the employer for the WIBA award
This issue was not determined; the Respondents argued the 2nd Respondent was merely an insurer and any award enforceable only against the 1st Respondent employer, but the Court deferred determination pending the attendance of the Director.
The Respondents submitted that the 2nd Respondent was only an insurer which had forwarded a settlement cheque of Kshs 364,665/- to the employer, and that enforcement lay against the employer alone. The Court did not rule on this submission because it first had to resolve the genuineness of the conflicting assessments. The question remains open for determination after James Mithanga appears and explains the inconsistency between the two demands.
Legal principles established
#Court orders
#- 1.Summons issued to James Mithanga, Director, Occupational Safety and Health, to appear in Court to explain the inconsistency between the two demands
- 2.The Deputy Registrar to serve a copy of the Ruling and a Summons to Appear upon James Mithanga to appear in Court on 26 May 2025 at 9.00 am
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent powers of the Employment and Labour Relations Court to issue summons and directions in a work injury benefit claim (WIBA) enforcement motion
Relief refused
#Adoption of the Kshs 874,422/- assessment as an order of the Court and issuance of a decree for that amount
The Court could not establish which of the two conflicting demands was genuine and required the assessing officer to explain the inconsistency
Costs
No costs order made in the extract; the applicant had sought costs of the Motion be paid by the Respondents.
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 Court cannot establish which of the demands are genuine. It is the said James Mithanga who can unravel the inconsistency.
The Deputy Registrar to serve a copy of this Ruling and a Summons to Appear upon James Mithanga, Director, Occupational Safety and Health, to appear in Court on 26 May 2025 at 9.00 am.
Issues in the judgment
#The compensation figure is internally inconsistent: the Motion and grounds refer to an assessment of Kshs 874,422/-, while the Court's own review of the second Demand records a benefit assessed at Kshs 672,384/-; the judgment does not reconcile the two figures.
The relief claimed in the Motion is left incomplete in the judgment; order (i) is shown as ellipsis ('…') with no text.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kyalo v DPL Festive Limited & another (Miscellaneous Cause E034 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1410 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1410/eng@2025-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.