Akinyi & another (As the Administrators of the Estate of Joel Odhiambo - Deceased) v Quale Holdings Limited t/a Guyana Guest House (Cause E068 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1947 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there was an employment relationship between the parties
- 2.Whether this is a proper case given Mombasa SRMCC No. 2078 of 2019
- 3.Whether the orders sought should be issued
- 4.Who should pay costs
Key legal issues
#Whether an employment relationship existed under WIBA
Yes - WIBA's broad definition of employee covers the deceased despite the respondent's contract-for-service defence
The court held WIBA protects everyone on the shop floor and applies a broader definition of 'employee' than the Employment Act. The respondent admitted a contract for service existed, placing the deceased on the shop floor where the accident occurred on 8 September 2018. The insurance policy's failure to define 'employee' and its schedule covering a maintenance person reinforced coverage.
Whether the pending Mombasa SRMCC No. 2078 of 2019 bars this claim (res judicata / section 6 Civil Procedure Act)
No bar; the claim is proper
The respondent argued the pending magistrates' suit over the same cause of action made this claim an abuse of process under section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act. The court noted the magistrate's court had declined jurisdiction following the LSK Supreme Court judgment and referred the matter back to DOSH, so the claim before the ELRC was proper. The court's jurisdictional objection had already been dismissed on 27 October 2022 and was not appealed or reviewed.
Whether the DOSH assessment of Ksh. 1,926,144 is valid and payable
Yes, the assessment and compensation are due
DOSH assessed the claim on 8 February 2019 and issued a demand notice served on the respondent, which neither objected nor appealed, and has not paid. The respondent's challenge to service and participation in the assessment was rejected; the respondent's own petition on the assessment had been resolved without joining DOSH in these proceedings. The court found proper service and notice confirmed.
Legal principles established
#- WIBA's definition of 'employee' under section 5 is broader than under the Employment Act and covers workers engaged on contract for service, whether oral or written, paid by time or by work done
- A worker injured on the employer's premises while on the shop floor is protected under WIBA irrespective of the contract-for-service/employee distinction
- An insurance policy cannot be used to negate WIBA coverage
Court orders
#- 1.The DOSH assessment and compensation at Ksh. 1,926,144 be paid to the claimants
- 2.Payment within 30 days, after which the sum shall accrue interest at court rates
- 3.The claimants are awarded costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Work Injury Benefits Act (WIBA) and Article 162(2) of the Constitution (ELRC jurisdiction); court's jurisdictional objection previously dismissed in its ruling of 27 October 2022
Relief refused
#Interest at 16% as sought by the claimants
The court awarded interest at court rates from expiry of 30 days instead
Costs
The claimants are awarded costs.
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 claim is hereby allowed, and judgment is entered in favour of the claimants against the respondent.
The same shall be paid within 30 days after which it shall accrue interest at court rates
The claimants are awarded costs.
The distinction sought by the respondent that the deceased was on a contract for service and not an employee is not the definition under the WIBA, unlike the Employment Act or the Labour Relations Act.
Negating the WIBA under the insurance cover is not permissible.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently dates the pending magistrates' suit as both SRMCC No. 2078 of 2018 and No. 2078 of 2019
The judgment inconsistently refers to the respondent's petition as Mombasa ELRC Petition No. E010 of 2023 and E010 of 2024
The judgment inconsistently refers to the insurer as 'Metropolitan Canon' and 'Metropolitan Cannon' General Insurance Limited
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Akinyi & another (As the Administrators of the Estate of Joel Odhiambo - Deceased) v Quale Holdings Limited t/a Guyana Guest House (Cause E068 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1947 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC Claim, Mombasa (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1947/eng@2025-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.