Simon Nanzayi Acheyia v Alloy Steel Castings Limited & another
The bottom line
#A Kenyan worker won Ksh. 1.86 million for a workplace injury, but the court refused to make the employer's insurer pay directly.
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 Director's award dated 2nd April 2025 is ripe for adoption as a judgment of the court
- 2.Whether the 2nd Respondent (alleged insurer) is a proper party against whom the award can be adopted and enforced
- 3.Whether the Applicant discharged the burden of proving the existence of a valid insurance cover issued by the 2nd Respondent to the 1st Respondent
- 4.Whether a Respondent's grounds of opposition, as opposed to a replying affidavit, amount to an admission of the Applicant's sworn assertions
Key legal issues
#Adoption of the Director's award against the 1st Respondent
The award was issued against the 1st Respondent, which neither objected nor appealed under sections 51 and 52 of WIBA and has not paid; the award is ripe for adoption and the court has jurisdiction to adopt it
The court scrutinized the award and found it directed against the 1st Respondent. No evidence of objection, appeal or payment was tendered. Citing Charles v Cheto, the court held the award ripe for adoption and entered judgment for the awarded sum with interest.
Liability of the alleged insurer (2nd Respondent)
The award cannot be adopted against the 2nd Respondent because it was not a party to the proceedings before the Director, the award is not directed at it, and no declaratory judgment exists against it
Section 10(2) of WIBA places the principal obligation on the employer; section 26(4) captures only employers or insurers against whom a claim is lodged by the Director. An insurer's liability requires a separate declaratory suit or participation in the Director's proceedings. The Applicant may pursue the insurer through separate declaratory proceedings.
Effect of grounds of opposition on the burden of proof
Grounds of opposition are a proper response under Rule 48 and do not amount to an admission; the Applicant bore the burden of proving the insurance cover and failed
Rule 48 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024 permits opposition by replying affidavit, grounds of objection or preliminary objection, each deemed a proper response. Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act place the burden on the party asserting the contested fact. The Applicant's unproven assertion of a valid cover could not stand.
Legal principles established
#- The court's role on adoption is to adopt the award as it is and it cannot introduce new parties who were not party to the proceedings before the Director
- The principal obligation to settle awards under the Work Injury Benefits Act rests with the employer
- An insurer can only be obligated to settle an award if judgment has been entered against it in a separate declaratory suit or it was a principal party before the Director
- A respondent may oppose an application by replying affidavit, grounds of opposition or preliminary objection, and any of these is a proper response
- The party who wishes the court to return a finding in his favour on a contested issue bears the burden of proof
Court orders
#- 1.The Director's award dated 2nd April 2025 is adopted as a judgment of the court
- 2.Judgment entered in favour of the Applicant against the 1st Respondent for Ksh. 1,855,169.40 as per the award
- 3.Interest on the award at court rates from 2nd April 2025
- 4.Costs of the application granted to the Applicant
- 5.The claim against the 2nd Respondent is dismissed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Adoption of a Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services award under the Work Injury Benefits Act; ELRC jurisdiction to adopt such awards as judgments of the court
Relief refused
#Adoption of the award against, and joint and several liability of, the 2nd Respondent (G.A Insurance Limited)
The award was directed only at the 1st Respondent; the insurer was not party to the proceedings before the Director and no evidence proved a valid insurance cover; such liability requires a separate declaratory suit
Costs
Costs of the application are granted to the Applicant.
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.
Accordingly, the court adopts the Director's award dated 2nd April 2025 as a judgment of the court with the consequence that judgment is hereby entered in favour of the Applicant against the 1st Respondent for Ksh. 1,855,169.40 as per the award.
For the avoidance of doubt, the claim against the 2nd Respondent is dismissed.
It (the court) is not entitled to introduce new parties, including alleged insurers of the employer, into the award if they were not party to the proceedings before the Director
If the Applicant wishes to pursue the 2nd Respondent to settle the award, it should do so through separate declaratory proceedings and not through the instant adoption process
The rules of evidence remain unchanged, whether one is dealing with oral or affidavit evidence.
Issues in the judgment
#Award date discrepancy noted in the application itself
Case number year (2026) predates some cited authorities' years but postdates the application date; application dated 18th February 2026 cites a 2026 KEELRC decision
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Simon Nanzayi Acheyia v Alloy Steel Castings Limited & another", Case Analysis (2026). Miscellaneous Application No. E086 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2775/eng@2026-10-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.