Ongoro v Stanbic Bank Kenya Ltd (Cause E059 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2332 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court has ordered an employer to pay a worker Kshs 2.46 million after the employer missed the 60-day deadline to challenge a workplace injury award.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this court has jurisdiction to adopt an award of the Director of Occupational Health and Safety made under WIBA
- 2.Whether the Respondent, having failed to lodge an objection within 60 days under sections 51 and 52 of WIBA, can resist adoption of the Director's award
- 3.Whether the Respondent's demand for a second medical examination by its insurer's doctor should be granted
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the ELRC to adopt DoSH awards
The ELRC has jurisdiction, under its original jurisdiction (Article 162 of the Constitution and section 12 of the ELRC Act) read with section 87(1)(c) of the Employment Act, to adopt a Director's WIBA award for enforcement.
The court noted the law is silent on enforcement of the Director's award, so the beneficiary must move the ELRC under section 87 of the Employment Act within the limitation period. The Court of Appeal in Charles v Cheto confirmed this jurisdiction, holding that a party who fails to object or seek judicial review of the Director's award cannot resist its adoption. The court distinguished its original jurisdiction in adoption proceedings from its appellate jurisdiction under section 52 of WIBA.
Consequence of failure to lodge a statutory objection within 60 days
A Respondent employer who fails to lodge an objection to the Director within 60 days under sections 51 and 52 of WIBA, and to file an appeal to the ELRC, cannot oppose adoption of the award; such objection and any belated application (including for a second medical examination) is misconceived.
The Respondent admitted awareness of the Director's assessment yet never filed an objection in the prescribed form within 60 days. Following Charles v Cheto, the Respondent's remedy lay in objection, appeal or judicial review; having done none, the opportunity to challenge the award was lost and the award had to be adopted. The demand for a second medical examination by the insurer's doctor could not override the statutory scheme.
Legal principles established
#- The ELRC has jurisdiction to adopt awards of the Director of Occupational Health and Safety made under WIBA for purposes of enforcement
- An aggrieved party's remedy against a Director's award is an objection under sections 51 and 52 of WIBA within 60 days, then an appeal; failing that, the award may be adopted and enforced
Court orders
#- 1.The award of the Director of Occupational Health and Safety in the sum of Kshs. 2,459,260.00 is adopted as an order of the court in favour of the Claimant/Applicant against the Respondent
- 2.The Respondent is directed to pay the award of Kshs. 2,459,260.00 to the Claimant/Applicant forthwith
- 3.Issues of interest and costs reserved for consideration in the final judgment of the court
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 87(1)(c) of the Employment Act, section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Article 162 of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Interest at court rates on the awarded amount from the date of assessment/demand until payment in full
Reserved for the final judgment on the pending matters
Respondent's application for a second medical examination of the Claimant by AIG's recommended doctor
The application was misconceived, the Respondent having failed to lodge an objection to the Director within 60 days and to appeal
Costs
Costs reserved for the final judgment: 'The issue of interest and costs shall be considered upon conclusion of the suit on pending matters in the final judgment of the court.'
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 of Appeal has clearly stated that this court has jurisdiction to adopt the awards of Director DoSH.
This court is consequently bound to adopt the award of director DoSH in partial settlement of this suit and therefore adopts that award in favour of the Claimant/Applicant in the sum of Kshs. 2,459,260.00 as against the Respondent.
Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to pay the award of Kshs. 2,459,260.00 to the Claimant/ Applicant forthwith.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is internally inconsistent on the date the Director's assessment was made: it first states the award was dated 8th September 2023, but later records the Respondent describing an assessment conducted on 26th October 2022.
The judgment refers to 'partial settlement of this suit', yet does not specify what matters remain pending in the suit.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ongoro v Stanbic Bank Kenya Ltd (Cause E059 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2332 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2332/eng@2025-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.