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 AllowedMiscellaneous Application No. E028 of 2026· [2026] KEELRC 2622 (KLR)

Janet Awuor Suro & Naomi Adhiambo (Suing as the Personal Representatives of the Estate of Kennedy Juma Ongaro (Deceased)) v Vigilmax Security Company Limited

Employment & Labour Relations Court of Kenya
29 September 2026
NMNzioki wa Makau
1,049 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court confirmed employers must pay workplace injury awards in full, even when their insurer underpays the claim.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicants, personal representatives of the estate of Kennedy Juma Ongaro, moved the Court by Motion dated 4th June 2026 seeking adoption as judgment of a DOSH award of Kshs. 1,056,000/- made on 15th March 2023 following the deceased's death after an assault while on duty on 10th January 2023. The Respondent paid Kshs. 506,968/-, leaving Kshs. 549,032/- outstanding. The applicants sought entry of judgment for the balance with 14% interest from the assessment date and costs. The Respondent opposed, explaining that it had instructed its insurer, AAR Insurance Company, to enhance cover from Kshs. 2,500,000/- to Kshs. 5,000,000/- before the accident, but the insurer failed to implement the instruction and processed the claim under the prior policy, causing the reduced payout; it urged that the shortfall be borne by the insurer. The applicants relied on Osino v China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation (K) Ltd for the Court's jurisdiction to enforce DOSH awards, invoked Rules 69 and 73(3) and (4) of the ELRC Procedure Rules, 2024, and argued the insurer dispute was irrelevant since the deceased was the Respondent's employee and the Respondent never challenged the DOSH award under WIBA. The Court held that the employer's obligation to satisfy WIBA awards cannot be shifted to its insurer, granted the motion, entered judgment for Kshs. 549,032/- with interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full, and awarded costs to the applicants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction to adopt DOSH awards

Holding

The ELRC has jurisdiction to adopt and enforce DOSH awards under Rules 69 and 73(3) and (4) of the ELRC Procedure Rules, 2024

Reasoning

The Applicants relied on Osino v China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation (K) Ltd, where the Court held the ELRC has jurisdiction to enforce DOSH awards. The Respondent conceded jurisdiction. The application was properly brought under Rules 69 and 73(3) and (4) permitting adoption of administrative decisions after expiry of the appeal/review period.

p. 4
02

Effect of insurer's role on employer's liability

Holding

The employer remains liable for the outstanding balance; its dispute with its insurer is irrelevant to the applicants' claim

Reasoning

The Respondent argued the shortfall was caused by its insurer's failure to implement an instruction to enhance cover. The Court held that the employer's obligation to satisfy WIBA awards is non-delegable and it cannot hide behind its insurer for non-payment. The insurer dispute is a separate matter between the Respondent and its insurer.

p. 7
03

Interest

Holding

Interest awarded at court rates from the date of judgment, not 14% from the DOSH assessment date

Reasoning

The Respondent relied on section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act, submitting interest is discretionary and should be exercised judiciously, noting WIBA prescribes no interest and the DOSH award contains no interest direction. The Court exercised discretion in favour of court rates from judgment.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • The ELRC has jurisdiction to adopt and enforce DOSH awards
  • It is the employer's obligation to satisfy WIBA awards and it cannot hide behind its insurer for failure to pay

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The award of the Director of Occupational Health and Safety made on 15th March 2023 is adopted as the judgment of the Court
  2. 2.Judgment entered for Kshs. 549,032/- against the Respondent
  3. 3.Interest at court rates on Kshs. 549,032/- from the date of judgment till payment in full
  4. 4.Costs of the application granted to the Applicants
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court Procedure Rules, 2024, Rules 69 and 73(3) and (4) - jurisdiction to adopt and enforce DOSH awards

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Janet Awuor Suro & Naomi Adhiambo (Suing as the Personal Representatives of the Estate of Kennedy Juma Ongaro (Deceased)) v Vigilmax Security Company Limited", Case Analysis (2026). Miscellaneous Application No. E028 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2622/eng@2026-09-29

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