Background
The appellant filed a constitutional petition at the High Court, alleging violations of his constitutional rights.
The High Court dismissed the petition, finding no sufficient evidence of constitutional breaches.
The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, challenging the High Court’s findings and asserting that his rights had indeed been violated.
Facts:
The respondent, Joash Shisia Cheto, was employed as a gardener by the appellant, Thepot Patrick Charles, at his residence in Malindi. On 7 February 2019, while performing his duties, a tree branch fell on Cheto, resulting in a severe injury to his left hand. The incident was reported to the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services (DOSHS) on 5 September 2019.
Following the statutory procedures, the Director assessed the compensation payable to Cheto at Kshs. 624,000. The appellant did not object to this assessment. Subsequently, Cheto demanded payment through a letter dated 26 January 2021, but the appellant failed to settle the amount. As a result, Cheto filed a suit in the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) at Malindi.
Issues for determination:
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appellant’s constitutional petition.
Whether the appellant established a prima facie case of constitutional rights violations.
ELRC Ruling
On 7 March 2022, Justice B.O.M. Manani of the ELRC ruled in favor of Cheto, ordering the appellant to pay the assessed compensation of Kshs. 624,000, along with accrued interest from 5 September 2019 until full payment, and the costs of the suit.
Court of Appeal Decision
The appellant appealed the ELRC decision, but the Court of Appeal upheld the ruling. The appellate judges—SG Kairu, KI Laibuta, and GWN Macharia—dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear the costs. The judgment reinforced the enforceability of compensation awards under WIBA and emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory procedures in occupational injury claims.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
It upheld the High Court’s decision, concluding that the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to prove any constitutional violations.
Reasoning:
The Court emphasized that constitutional claims must be substantiated with clear evidence.
Mere allegations, without demonstrating specific breaches and how they occurred, are insufficient.
The appellant failed to meet the evidentiary threshold required in constitutional litigation.
Legal Principles Affirmed:
The burden of proof in constitutional claims lies on the claimant.
Courts will not entertain constitutional petitions based on unsubstantiated allegations.
Judicial discretion will not be interfered with unless there is a clear misapprehension or misapplication of the law or evidence.
Implications/Legal Significance of the case:
This case underscores the legal obligation of employers to compensate employees for work-related injuries as mandated by WIBA.
It also highlights the role of the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services in assessing and enforcing such compensation.
Employers are reminded of the necessity to comply with statutory requirements and the potential legal consequences of failing to do so.
Access the full judgment here: Charles v Cheto (Civil Appeal E046 of 2022) [2025] KECA 784.
No comments:
Post a Comment