Techno-Plast Limited v Wafula (Appeal 13 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2767 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed that work injury claims filed between 2009 and 2019 can proceed in Magistrates' Courts under the Chief Justice's practice directions.
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 learned Magistrate erred in holding that the Magistrates' Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine work injury claims under WIBA
- 2.Whether section 16 read with section 23(1) of WIBA bars institution of court proceedings by the aggrieved employee
- 3.Whether the doctrine of legitimate expectation applies to suits filed after the commencement of WIBA but before the Supreme Court decision of 3rd December 2019
- 4.Whether the Chief Justice's practice directions in Kenya Gazette No. 5477 could confer jurisdiction on the Magistrates' Courts
- 5.Whether the appeal should be allowed and the plaint struck out
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Court over WIBA claims filed between 2009 and 2019
The Magistrates' Court had jurisdiction; the suit filed in 2018 falls within the bracket of claims addressed by the Chief Justice's practice directions and is protected by the doctrine of legitimate expectation arising from the High Court's declaration of nullity of WIBA sections 16, 23(1) and 52.
WIBA commenced on 2nd June 2008. The High Court (4th March 2009) declared sections 16, 23(1) and 52 unconstitutional, creating a legitimate expectation that claimants could lodge claims directly in court. The Court of Appeal (17th November 2017) and Supreme Court (3rd December 2019) decisions did not give directions on claims filed in the interim. The respondent's suit, filed in 2018, falls in that bracket, and the Chief Justice's Gazette Notice No. 5477 of 28th April 2023 directed such claims to proceed to conclusion before the Magistrates' Courts or ELRC.
Whether the Chief Justice's Gazette Notice can confer jurisdiction
The objection that the practice directions cannot confer jurisdiction is unsustainable because the doctrine of legitimate expectation, appreciated by the superior courts, meant such cases could only proceed in court, and the directions are defensible under Article 159 on access to justice.
The court accepted that jurisdiction flows from the Constitution and statute, but held that in the circumstances of these transitional claims the superior courts' endorsement of legitimate expectation, and the constitutional principle of access to justice under Article 159, sustained the practice directions allowing the claims to proceed rather than being defeated on a technicality.
Scope of the legitimate expectation doctrine in work injury claims
The legitimate expectation protected by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court applies to claims pending before the enactment of WIBA, but the Chief Justice's practice directions extended protection to claims filed after commencement of WIBA and before the Supreme Court decision, and this court is in tandem with that position.
The court traced the litigation history: the High Court judgment of 4th March 2009, Court of Appeal judgment of 17th November 2017, and Supreme Court judgment of 3rd December 2019. The superior courts directed only on matters filed prior to 2nd June 2008, leaving a gap. The practice directions filled that gap in the public interest, and the court endorsed them, upholding the lower court's ruling.
Legal principles established
#- Claims for work-related injuries filed after the commencement of WIBA (2nd June 2008) but before the Supreme Court decision (3rd December 2019) shall proceed to conclusion before the ELRC or Magistrates' Courts per the Chief Justice's practice directions
- The practice directions served public interest, improved access to justice and are defensible under Article 159 of the Constitution
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the Respondent
- 2.The ruling by the lower court that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit is upheld
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (Senior Resident Magistrate)
- Ruling delivered 3rd September by Honourable E. Wanjala (Ms) Senior Resident Magistrate
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appeal against a ruling of a Senior Resident Magistrate; practice directions in Kenya Gazette No. 5477 of 28th April 2023 on WIBA matters; Article 159 of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Setting aside the subordinate court's ruling of 3rd September and substitution with an order allowing the application dated 6th February 2020 striking out the plaint and the suit
The court upheld the trial court's jurisdiction under the Chief Justice's practice directions and the doctrine of legitimate expectation for suits filed between commencement of WIBA and the Supreme Court decision
Costs
The Appeal is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
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 therefore means that by the time the Respondent filed their case at lower court in 2018 the WIBA had commenced and it was before the Supreme Court decision of 2019 that is between 2009-2019 hence within the bracket the Chief Justice addressed.
All claims with respect to compensation for work related injuries and diseases filed after the commencement of WIBA and before the Supreme Court decision at the Employment and Labour Relations Courts or the Magistrates’ Courts shall proceed until conclusion before the said courts.
Access to justice is one of the fundamental principles of the Constitution which cannot be defeated by giving premium to a technicality that could result in denial of access to justice.
The Court is in tandem with the holding of the two superior courts and consequently upholds the ruling by the lower court that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as per the directions given by the Chief Justice on such matters
The Appeal is therefore found without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#Paragraph numbering is inconsistent/duplicated in the judgment (paragraph numbered 22 appears after paragraphs 21 and 23, and the sequence restarts)
The judgment confuses the parties' lower court designations: paragraph 20 refers to the case in the lower court 'by the Respondent' filed in 2018, while paragraph 22 states 'The case in the lower court by the Appellant in this appeal was filed on September 27, 2017', although the appeal narrative elsewhere says the injury occurred on 7th March 2018 and the suit was filed in 2018
Appellant's ground of appeal refers to 'Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No.133 of 2011' but the judgment elsewhere identifies the Court of Appeal decision as delivered on November 17, 2017
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Techno-Plast Limited v Wafula (Appeal 13 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2767 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Appeal dated 19th November 2020 (lower court suit filed 2018; application dated 6th February 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2767/eng@2025-10-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.