Timsales Limited v Mburu (Appeal E054 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 3001 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment and Labour Relations Court confirmed a work injury objection was filed on time because the DOSH date stamp, not later correspondence, counts.
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 objection to the DOSH Award was filed outside the 60-day period prescribed under Sections 51 and 52 of the Work Injury Benefits Act
- 2.Whether the Appeal should be struck out on the ground of late filing of the objection
Key legal issues
#Timeliness of the objection to the DOSH Award
The objection was filed within the 60-day period under Sections 51 and 52 of the Work Injury Benefits Act; DOSH's finding of lateness was incorrect
The Award was made on 23rd February 2023. The objection form was dated 17th March 2023 and was forwarded to DOSH by the Appellant's Advocates on the same date. The DOSH stamp shows receipt on 4th April 2023, which is within 60 days. The later letter of 14th March 2024 was merely a follow-up prompted by execution proceedings, not the filing of the objection. DOSH erred in treating 29th February 2024 as the date of filing.
Validity of the Appeal
The Appeal, filed on 15th July 2024 after receipt of DOSH's decision on the objection, is validly before the Court
Having received DOSH's decision declining the objection, the Appellant filed the Appeal 11 days later. Since the objection itself was filed within the statutory period and the appeal followed promptly on DOSH's response, the Court found the appeal properly before it and declined the application to strike it out.
Legal principles established
#- Where the objection form is dated and stamped as received within the 60-day statutory period, an objection is validly lodged even if DOSH later declines it on a finding of lateness
Court orders
#- 1.The application is declined
- 2.The Appellant shall file and serve its Record of Appeal within 21 days of this Ruling
- 3.No order on the costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 51 and 52 of the Work Injury Benefits Act; Rule 68(5) of the E&LRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024
Relief refused
#Striking out of the Appeal
The objection was filed within the 60-day period prescribed under the Work Injury Benefits Act
Costs
No order on the 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.
Objection was filed well within the stipulated period of 60 days.
This cannot be correct, because the objection form, dated 17th March 2023, is stamped to have been received by DOSH, on 4th April 2023.
The application is declined.
No order on the costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the Award was made on 21st February 2023 in the Respondent's position but finds it was made on 23rd February 2023
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Timsales Limited v Mburu (Appeal E054 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 3001 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Appeal against Objection to DOSH Award; related to Nakuru Chief Magistrate's Court Miscellaneous Application Number E048 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3001/eng@2025-10-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.