Lizzie Wanjiku Mwangi v Kenya Power and Lighting Company Limited
The bottom line
#Kenya Power must pay a former employee Ksh. 3.9 million after failing to properly oppose a workplace injury award adopted as a court judgment.
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 Respondent, having filed no replying affidavit, grounds of opposition or preliminary objection, has in law opposed the application
- 2.Whether the Respondent could rely on the replying affidavit of the withdrawn party, Old Mutual Insurance Company Ltd
- 3.Whether the court may consider the merits, legality and proportionality of the Director's award in adoption proceedings
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent opposed the application in law
The Respondent did not oppose the application, having filed no replying affidavit, grounds of opposition or preliminary objection, and could not rely on Old Mutual's affidavit.
Rule 48 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024 prescribes the manner of opposing an application: a replying affidavit, grounds of opposition or preliminary objection. Rule 51 permits submissions only by a party who has so opposed. The Respondent filed none of these and, being a distinct party from Old Mutual, could not adopt its affidavit. It therefore essentially did not oppose the motion.
Whether the court may examine the merits of the Director's award on adoption
No; the court's role in adoption proceedings is limited to adopting the award, and merits-based challenges belong in objection or appeal under sections 51 and 52 of WIBA.
Following Charles v Cheto [2025] KECA 784 (KLR), the Court of Appeal held that the ELRC's role at adoption stage is limited to adopting the award as rendered and it cannot reopen the award for merits. The Respondent's complaints on legality, proportionality and quantum should have been pursued through objection proceedings or an appeal under sections 51 and 52 of the Work Injury Benefits Act.
Legal principles established
#- In adoption proceedings the ELRC's role is limited to adopting the award as rendered; it has no mandate to reopen the award to consider its merits.
- A respondent may only oppose an application by filing a replying affidavit, grounds of opposition or a preliminary objection; submissions alone are improper.
- A party cannot rely on another (withdrawn) party's affidavit; each party bears individual responsibility to file its own response.
- Challenges to a WIBA Director's award must be raised through objection proceedings or appeal under sections 51 and 52 of WIBA, not in adoption proceedings.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 4th November 2025 is allowed and the award by the Director dated 13th November 2024 is adopted as a judgment of the court
- 2.A decree is issued in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent for Ksh. 3,930,734.50 in terms of the award
- 3.The award attracts interest at court rates from 13th November 2024
- 4.The Applicant is awarded costs of the application
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; Employment and Labour Relations (Procedure) Rules, 2024
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 application dated 4th November 2025 is allowed and the award by the Director dated 13th November 2024 is adopted as a judgment of the court.
Accordingly, a decree is hereby issued in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent for Ksh. 3,930,734.50 in terms of the aforesaid award.
The award attracts interest at court rates from 13th November 2024.
the role of this court at this stage is limited to adopting the award as rendered. It (the court) has no mandate to re-open the award for purposes of considering its merits.
a Respondent to an application can only properly oppose the application by filing either a replying affidavit or grounds of opposition or a preliminary objection.
Issues in the judgment
#Chronology anomaly: application dated 4 November 2025, withdrawal notice dated 15 April 2026, ruling delivered 8 October 2026.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lizzie Wanjiku Mwangi v Kenya Power and Lighting Company Limited", Case Analysis (2026). Miscellaneous Application No. E428 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2784/eng@2026-10-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.