Mary Aoko Ogola (Suing as the Personal Representative of the Estate of George Omondi Opiyo (Deceased)) v Vigilmax Security Company Limited
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that an employer must pay the outstanding work injury compensation itself and cannot blame its insurer for the shortfall.
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 should adopt the DOSH award without taking into account the substantial payment already made
- 2.Whether the Respondent should be condemned to satisfy the alleged outstanding balance notwithstanding the undisputed role of its insurer in the payment
- 3.Whether the Applicants are entitled to interest at 14% from 15th March 2023
- 4.Who should bear the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction to adopt and enforce DOSH awards
The ELRC has jurisdiction to adopt and enforce DOSH awards under Rules 69 and 73(3) and (4) of the ELRC Procedure Rules, 2024
The Applicants relied on Osino v China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation (K) Ltd, where the ELRC was held to have requisite jurisdiction to enforce DOSH awards. The court exercised that jurisdiction and adopted the award, indicating acceptance of the jurisdictional position.
Responsibility for the outstanding balance where insurer underpaid
The employer must satisfy the WIBA award; a dispute with its insurer is no defence against the claimant
The Respondent argued the shortfall was caused by AAR Insurance's failure to implement instructions enhancing cover. The court held the employer's obligation is to the claimant and any remedy against the insurer lies between the employer and insurer; partial payment does not extinguish the balance owed.
Interest on the outstanding sum
Interest awarded at court rates from the date of judgment, not 14% from the date of the DOSH assessment
The Respondent submitted, relying on section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act, that interest is discretionary. The court did not grant 14% from 15th March 2023, instead exercising discretion in favour of court rates from judgment.
Legal principles established
#- It is the employer's obligation to satisfy WIBA awards and it cannot shelter behind its insurer's failure to pay
Court orders
#- 1.The DOSH award of 15th March 2023 is adopted and judgment entered against the Respondent for the outstanding Kshs. 549,032/-
- 2.Interest at court rates on Kshs. 549,032/- from the date of judgment till payment in full
- 3.Costs of the application to the Applicants
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Procedure Rules, 2024, Rules 69 and 73(3) and (4) - jurisdiction to adopt and enforce DOSH awards under WIBA
Relief refused
#Interest at 14% from 15th March 2023
Court instead awarded interest at court rates from the date of judgment, not from date of DOSH assessment
Costs
Costs of the application granted to the Applicants
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 award of the Director of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) is partly settled. The balance it would seem is withheld by a third party.
It is the obligation of the employer to satisfy WIBA awards and it cannot hide behind its insurer for the failure to pay the amount due.
Consequently, the Court will grant the motion with costs to the Applicants. There will be interest at court rates on the sum outstanding which is Kshs. Kshs. 549,032/- from the date of judgment till payment in full.
Issues in the judgment
#Case number year (2026) precedes some events but motion dated 4th June 2026 against award of 15th March 2023 is internally consistent
Duplication of currency prefix in the final order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mary Aoko Ogola (Suing as the Personal Representative of the Estate of George Omondi Opiyo (Deceased)) v Vigilmax Security Company Limited", Case Analysis (2026). Miscellaneous Application No. E029 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2621/eng@2026-09-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.