Apex Steel Limited v Mauti (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal 3 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 3734 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court reduced a workplace injury payout but upheld the employer's liability, largely because the employer couldn't produce its legally required accident register.
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 trial court erred in its finding on liability
- 2.Whether the trial court erred in its finding on quantum of damages award
Key legal issues
#Whether the trial court erred in finding the respondent was injured in the course of employment and in apportioning liability 90:10
The trial court's finding on liability was upheld; the appellant failed to produce the statutory accident register, supporting the inference of concealment of evidence, and the court would not interfere with findings based on witness credibility.
The court re-evaluated the evidence as a first appellate court. The PCEA Kikuyu medical report dated 30th November 2013 recorded a history of furnace explosion, corroborating the respondent's account. The appellant's supervisor left at 10.30pm and did not witness the 11pm incident, did not call the acting supervisor Paul, and crucially failed to produce the accident register required by section 122 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. That failure led to a conclusion of concealment of evidence and the court declined to disturb the liability apportionment.
Whether the trial court's award of general damages of Kshs. 280,000 was excessive
The award was held excessive because it was based on a precedent involving more severe injuries; it was reduced to Kshs. 150,000.
The court found the injuries in C & P Shoe Industries v Albert Maina Kalii (chemical burn with 5% permanent incapacity, photophobia) the most comparable to the respondent's conjunctivitis of both eyes with photophobia. Factoring in inflation from 2014 to 2017 and the pain the respondent continued to suffer, the court substituted an award of Kshs. 150,000, applying the principle that appellate interference requires the award to be an entirely erroneous estimate.
Legal principles established
#- A first appellate court must reconsider and evaluate the evidence and reach its own conclusions, while making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses.
- An employer's duty of care includes providing competent staff, safe systems of work, protective clothing and appliances, including goggles for processes involving injurious substances.
- Every workplace must keep a general register recording particulars of every accident; failure to produce it may lead to an adverse inference of concealment of evidence.
- An appellate court will not disturb an award of damages unless it is inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the respondent: general damages of Kshs. 150,000 less 10% liability with interest at court rate from date of judgment
- 2.Special damages of Kshs. 3,000 with interest at court rate from date of filing suit
- 3.Costs to the plaintiff in the suit
- 4.Each party to bear own costs in the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Principal Magistrate's Court, Mavoko (ELRC)
- Mavoko MCELRC Cause No. 645 of 2014
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the trial magistrate's court (Employment and Labour Relations Court appeal)
Relief refused
#Appellant's prayer that the respondent's suit be dismissed with costs
The court found no basis to interfere with the trial court's finding on liability and upheld the 90:10 apportionment
Appellant's costs of the appeal
The appeal succeeded only on quantum, so each party was ordered to bear its own costs in the appeal
Costs
Costs of the suit to the plaintiff; on the appeal, each party to bear own 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 appeal is partially allowed. The liability apportionment of 90:10 in favor of the respondent against the appellant is upheld.
General damages of Kshs. 150,000 less 10% liability with interest at court rate from date of judgment.
Special damages Kshs. 3000 with interest at court rate from date of filing suit.
On costs in the appeal, the appeal succeeded only on quantum. Each party to bear own costs in the appeal.
The very failure to produce the said register before the lower court led to the conclusion that the appellant had concealed evidence before the lower court.
Where in particular there is a conflict of primary facts between witnesses and where the credibility of the witnesses is crucial, the appellate court will hardly interfere with the conclusions made by the trial Judge after weighing the credibility of the witnesses.
Issues in the judgment
#The appellant's submissions on quantum state 'Notwithstanding the dismissal of the Plaintiff's Suit' although the suit was in fact allowed by the trial court and on appeal, suggesting an error or copied submission.
Internal inconsistency in dates: the defence witness statement is dated 2nd October 2014 in the background section but 2nd October 2024 in the determination.
The witness states he denied anyone was injured and taken to Athi Medical on 'the 30th of November 2023' though the accident date is 29th/30th November 2013.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Apex Steel Limited v Mauti (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal 3 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 3734 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Mavoko MCELRC Appeal from Cause No. 645 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3734/eng@2025-12-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.