Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherCause 217 of 2024· [2026] KEELRC 2776 (KLR)

Kikuvi v Kenyatta National Hospital & another

Employment and Labour Relations Court
8 October 2026
OMOnesmus Makau
1,580 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

#

Kenya's Employment Court confirmed that work injury compensation claims must be made against the employer, not the insurance company.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi (Makau J) determined a Notice of Motion dated 27th January 2026 by AAR Insurance Kenya Limited, the 2nd Respondent, seeking to strike out the entire claim against it on the ground that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The claimant, legal representative of his wife who died of Covid-19 contracted in the course of her employment with Kenyatta National Hospital, sought general damages under the Work Injury Benefits Act as assessed by the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services at Kshs. 27,394,272, and a declaration that the respondents were bound to pay the balance of Kshs. 22,394,272 after the insurer paid Kshs. 5,000,000 under a policy it said was capped at that sum. The insurer argued liability under WIBA lay on the employer alone, that it had fully discharged its contractual obligations, and that no relationship with the claimant supported a claim. The claimant countered that the policy was not WIBA-compliant and the contractual cap was illegal. The court applied Order 2 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the DT Dobie test, holding that Section 10 of WIBA places liability on the employer only, and that Section 7's mandatory insurance duty does not transfer liability to the insurer beyond the agreed contractual cover. The court struck out the entire claim against the insurer with costs, expressly leaving the insurer's liability to the employer under the contract for another forum.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claim discloses a reasonable cause of action against the insurer (2nd Respondent)

Holding

It does not; the claim against the insurer was struck out under Order 2 Rule 15(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Reasoning

The court applied Order 2 Rule 15 and the DT Dobie test of a reasonable cause of action, considering only the pleading. Section 10 of WIBA places liability to compensate an employee on the employer alone. The claimant was employed by the 1st Respondent, not the insurer, so no remedy under WIBA can lie against the insurer. Section 7's insurance duty does not transfer liability to the insurer beyond the contractual cover.

Legal principles established

#
  • Liability to compensate an employee under WIBA lies on the employer; an insurer is not liable to the employee under Section 10 of WIBA
  • Section 7 WIBA's mandatory insurance duty does not transfer liability from employer to insurer; it only eases the employer's burden to the extent agreed in the insurance contract
  • Where no remedy has been sought or can lie against a party, no reasonable cause of action lies against that party and it ought to be struck out

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Struck out the entire claim against the 2nd Respondent (AAR Insurance Kenya Limited) with costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over transferred employment cause (suit transferred from the High Court on 19th March 2024)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kikuvi v Kenyatta National Hospital & another", Case Analysis (2026). Cause 217 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2776/eng@2026-10-08

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