Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause No. E2204 of 2017

Lucy Muthoni Kamande and Jane Wangari Muigai v The Director-Directorate of Occupational Safety and Health Services & Ace Freight Ltd

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
22 September 2026
JGJacob Gakeri
1,379 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court allowed a deceased worker's family to pursue an order forcing the government to assess their work-injury compensation, but refused contempt and other reliefs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on an ex parte Chamber Summons dated 7th April 2025 by which the claimants, administrators of the estate of Josphat Macharia Muigai who died in employment on 25th April 2016, sought leave to apply for judicial review orders of mandamus compelling the Director-Directorate of Occupational Safety and Health Services (DOSH) to compute or assess the award due under a judgment delivered on 12th July 2022. In the alternative they sought leave to institute contempt proceedings against the respondent, and further alternative orders under section 11(2)(c) of the Fair Administrative Action Act compelling the 2nd respondent, Ace Freight Ltd, to fill and submit the Accident Notice Form (DOSH Form I) to enable assessment of compensation. The application, expressed under Order 53 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the Law Reform Act, the Fair Administrative Action Act and the Work Injury Benefits Act, was unopposed. The court restated that the grant of leave for judicial review is a discretionary exercise whose purpose is to filter out frivolous applications, the test being whether the applicant has an arguable case, citing Central Bank of Kenya v Ratilal Automobiles Ltd, Meixnev v Attorney General and Aga Khan Education Services Kenya v Republic. Noting that counsel had argued the substantive motion prematurely when no leave had previously been granted, the court confined itself to the leave stage. On the strength of the verifying affidavit, statutory statement and annexures, it found an arguable case and granted leave to apply for mandamus within 14 days. The alternative reliefs were not granted, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the applicants have an arguable case to warrant leave to apply for an order of mandamus compelling DOSH to compute or assess the award
  2. 2.Whether leave should also issue for contempt proceedings and for alternative reliefs compelling completion of the Accident Notice Form

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether leave should be granted for judicial review by way of mandamus

Holding

Leave granted on the arguable-case test, limited to mandamus, to be filed within 14 days

Reasoning

The court restated that leave is a discretionary filter to weed out frivolous applications, citing Central Bank of Kenya v Ratilal Automobiles and Meixnev v Attorney General. Satisfied by the verifying affidavit, statutory statement and annexures, it found an arguable case under the Aga Khan Education Services test and granted leave for mandamus only.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Grant of leave to apply for judicial review is a discretionary exercise to be exercised judiciously
  • The test at the leave stage is whether the applicant has an arguable case

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to the applicants to apply for the order of mandamus against the respondents within 14 days
  2. 2.Parties shall bear their own costs

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

JG
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Order 53 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; sections 8 and 11 of the Fair Administrative Action Act; sections 8 and 26(2) of the Work Injury Benefits Act; Law Reform Act

Relief refused

#

Leave to institute contempt of court proceedings against the respondent

Court held leave had not previously been granted and addressed only the mandamus leave; alternative reliefs not considered at this stage

p. 5

Alternative reliefs to compel the 2nd respondent to fill and submit DOSH Form I / Accident Notice Form

Not granted; only leave for mandamus was issued

p. 5

Costs

Parties shall bear their 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 upshot of the foregoing is that leave be and is hereby granted to the Applicant to apply for the order of mandamus against the respondents within 14 days.
p. 5disposition - leave granted
Parties shall bear their own cost.
p. 5costs order
It is trite that the granting of leave to an applicant to apply for judicial review orders is a matter of discretion.
p. 4discretionary nature of leave
The leave of the Court is a prerequisite to making a substantive application for judicial review. The propose of the leave is to filter out frivolous applications.
p. 4purpose of the leave stage

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Date discrepancy: application dated 7 April 2025 but ruling delivered 22 September 2026

minor

Typographical errors in quoted passages, e.g. 'propose of the leave' and 'the rest to be applied'

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Lucy Muthoni Kamande and Jane Wangari Muigai v The Director-Directorate of Occupational Safety and Health Services & Ace Freight Ltd", Case Analysis (2026). Cause No. E2204 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2579/eng@2026-09-22

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.