Wairimu v Lathyflora (K) Limited (Miscellaneous Application E279 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2985 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court struck out an injured worker's bid to recover Kshs. 3.4 million in medical bills because they were never assessed through the WIBA process first.
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 lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 5th August 2025 seeking payment of medical expenses not included in the Director's award
Key legal issues
#Whether the court has jurisdiction to enforce a claim for medical expenses not included in the Director's award under WIBA
The court lacks jurisdiction; the claim is premature because the medical expenses were never determined by the National Council under section 47(3) of WIBA and no Director's award was presented for adoption
The court held that under WIBA a party moves the court either by appeal under section 52(2) or by seeking adoption of an award or lawful decision. The Applicant's claim of Kshs. 3,442,974 was a mere hospital bill not determined by the Council as required by section 47(3), so invoking the court's jurisdiction was premature. Section 16 of WIBA bars any action against an employer outside the Act. The court therefore struck out the Motion but spared the injured Applicant costs.
Legal principles established
#- There are only two ways a party can move the court under WIBA: by appeal under section 52(2) against the Director's decision, or by invoking the court's jurisdiction to adopt and enforce an award, decision or agreement under the procedure rules
- The necessity, nature and sufficiency of medical aid under section 47 of WIBA is determined by the National Council for Occupational Safety and Health, and a court cannot enforce a mere hospital bill that the Council has not determined
- Section 16 of WIBA provides a mandatory alternative procedure barring any action against an employer save under the Act
- A court without jurisdiction must down its tools
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 5th August 2025 is struck out for lack of jurisdiction
- 2.The Applicant is not condemned to pay costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution and section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; Work Injury Benefits Act
Relief refused
#Order directing the Respondent to pay Kshs. 3,442,974 as medical expenses with interest and costs
The claimed medical expenses were not determined by the National Council for Occupational Safety and Health under section 47(3) of WIBA and no Director's award was before the court, so the claim was premature
Costs
Each party to bear own costs - the court declined to condemn the injured Applicant to pay 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.
There are only two ways, a party can move the court under Wiba. The first is by an appeal under section 52(2) of the Act to challenge a final decision by the Director made under section 52(1) of the Act.
Until Applicants approaches the court waving an award made by the Director under Wiba, the court declines jurisdiction.
Accordingly I must down my tools by striking out the Motion. Considering the serious injuries sufiered by the Applicant while in the course employment by the Respondent. I will not condemn him to pay costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the Director 'assessed the compensation payable to the Respondent' although compensation would be payable to the Applicant/employee
The judgment dates the accident inconsistently - 1st January 2023 in the introduction but 21st January 2023 in the Motion
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wairimu v Lathyflora (K) Limited (Miscellaneous Application E279 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2985 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2985/eng@2025-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.