Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment

Karanja v Master Star Co Ltd & another (Cause E418 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1636 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
30 May 2025
SRStella Rutto
1,933 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, an employee of the 1st Respondent, was injured on 12th July 2021 when the vehicle he was driving skidded and overturned along the Mai Mahiu-Limuru Road after an unidentified boda boda rider crossed his path. He sued seeking an order compelling the 1st Respondent to pay an award of Kshs 1,389,863.00 made by the 2nd Respondent (the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services under WIBA) on 2nd December 2024, together with special damages of Kshs 1,446,923.60, or alternatively an assessment of general damages by the Court, plus costs and interest. The 2nd Respondent's claim was withdrawn after the award was made. The 1st Respondent did not enter appearance or file a defence despite service, and the suit proceeded as an undefended cause by formal proof on 18th February 2025. Framing the sole issue as whether the Claimant was entitled to the reliefs sought, the Court held that although WIBA contains no mechanism for enforcing a Director's award against a reluctant employer, the ELRC has inherent jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(a) and section 12 of the ELRC Act to adopt such an award as its judgment for execution, following prior ELRC precedent. It therefore adopted the award of Kshs 1,389,863.00 as judgment, with interest at court rates. However, it declined the special and general damages reliefs, holding that Section 16 of WIBA bars common law damages actions against employers for work-related injuries, confining recourse to WIBA's statutory mechanisms. Costs were awarded to the Claimant against the 1st Respondent. Judgment delivered at Nairobi on 30th May 2025 by Stella Rutto, Judge.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction to enforce a WIBA award against a non-settling employer

Holding

The Court has jurisdiction to enforce the Director's award under WIBA

Reasoning

Relying on precedent, the Court found that WIBA contains no enforcement mechanism for awards by the Director against a reluctant employer. As the court with unlimited original jurisdiction over employment disputes, it may adopt the award as its own judgment for execution. The award of 2nd December 2024 was unchallenged and unsettled.

p. 3
02

Whether special and general damages could be awarded at common law

Holding

No - Section 16 WIBA bars such claims

Reasoning

The Court construed Section 16 of WIBA as restricting employees to statutory compensation mechanisms for work-related injuries, excluding common law damages suits against employers. The Supreme Court's view that Section 16 channels claims to the Director rather than limiting court access reinforced this.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The ELRC has inherent jurisdiction to adopt as judgment the Director's award under WIBA for purposes of execution, as there is no statutory enforcement mechanism
  • Section 16 of WIBA restricts recovery of damages for work-related injuries to the statutory mechanisms under WIBA, excluding common law remedies

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Adoption of the 2nd Respondent's award of Kshs 1,389,863.00 as the judgment of the Court
  2. 2.Interest on the adopted sum at court rates from the date of the decision until payment in full
  3. 3.1st Respondent to bear the costs of the suit

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

SR
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution and section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act

Relief refused

#

Special damages of Kshs 1,446,923.60 and alternative assessment of general damages by the Court

Section 16 of WIBA bars common law actions for damages against the employer for work-related accidents

p. 4

Costs

The 1st Respondent shall bear the costs of the suit.

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.

Accordingly, the Claimant's Claim only succeeds to the extent that the Court adopts the 2nd Respondent's award in the sum of Kshs 1,389,863.00 as the judgment of this court. The Court further awards interest on the said sum at court rates from the date of this decision until payment in full.
p. 4Disposition - adoption of WIBA award
it has the inherent jurisdiction to adopt as judgement the Director's award for purposes of execution
p. 3Jurisdiction to enforce WIBA awards
the legal remedies for work-related injuries are limited and fundamentally, any recourse for work-related injuries is through the mechanisms established under the Work Injury Benefits Act as opposed to the Court
p. 4Exclusivity of WIBA remedies

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Karanja v Master Star Co Ltd & another (Cause E418 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1636 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1636/eng@2025-05-30

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.