Ogembo Tea Factory Company Limited v Zerebath Oyaro Marita [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Hon. Justice Mathews N. Nduma
Judgment Date
October 15, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Ogembo Tea Factory Company Limited v Zerebath Oyaro Marita [2020] eKLR, highlighting key legal findings and implications for the parties involved.

Case Brief: Ogembo Tea Factory Company Limited v Zerebath Oyaro Marita [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Ogembo Tea Factory Company Limited v. Zerebath Oyaro Marita
- Case Number: Appeal No. 24 of 2018
- Court: Employment and Labour Relations Court, Kisumu
- Date Delivered: 15th October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Hon. Justice Mathews N. Nduma
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court must resolve the following legal issues:
- Whether the respondent’s suit was time-barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007, in conjunction with Section 4 of the Limitation of Actions Act Cap 22 of the Laws of Kenya.
- Whether the trial magistrate erred in holding the appellant liable for negligence and in assessing damages awarded to the respondent.

3. Facts of the Case:
The appellant, Ogembo Tea Factory Company Limited, faced a suit from the respondent, Zerebath Oyaro Marita, concerning injuries sustained while the respondent was employed at the factory. The injury occurred on April 24, 2003, when the respondent’s hand was caught in a faulty conveyor machine. The respondent alleged that the appellant was negligent in maintaining the machinery and failing to provide adequate safety equipment. The respondent filed an ex parte application seeking to file a suit out of time, which was granted by the Chief Magistrate, allowing the suit to be filed on April 25, 2013, approximately 10 years after the incident.

4. Procedural History:
The respondent initially sought leave to file a suit out of time, which was granted by Hon. Chief Magistrate O. Ogola. The respondent then filed the plaint, and the case proceeded before a different magistrate, Hon. SPM Wairimu, who ruled in favor of the respondent. The appellant appealed the decision, arguing that the suit was time-barred and that the trial magistrate had erred in assessing liability and damages.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The relevant legal provisions include Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007, which addresses the limitation period for employment-related claims, and Section 4(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22, which stipulates a three-year limit for tort claims.
- Case Law: The court referenced the case of Iga v. Makerere University (1972) EA 65, which emphasizes that a court lacks jurisdiction to hear a case if it is time-barred. The court also considered Selle v. Associated Motor Boat Company Limited (1968) EA 123 regarding the re-evaluation of evidence in appeals.
- Application: The court found that the trial magistrate had jurisdiction to hear the suit since the Chief Magistrate had granted leave to file out of time. The court determined that the respondent had sufficiently demonstrated ignorance of material facts regarding the injury, which justified the extension of the limitation period. The evidence presented by the respondent was credible, establishing that the appellant was liable for negligence due to the defective machinery.

6. Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appellant's appeal, affirming that the respondent's claim was not time-barred and that the trial magistrate correctly assessed liability. The court upheld the damages awarded, finding them appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the judgment.

8. Summary:
The Employment and Labour Relations Court ruled in favor of the respondent, affirming the trial court's findings on liability and damages. The appellant was ordered to pay Kshs. 600,000 in general damages and Kshs. 6,500 in special damages, along with the costs of the suit. This case underscores the importance of timely action in negligence claims and the courts' willingness to uphold claims where a party has been misled regarding their rights.

Citations:
- Employment Act, 2007
- Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22 Laws of Kenya
- Iga v. Makerere University (1972) EA 65
- Selle v. Associated Motor Boat Company Limited (1968) EA 123

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Ogembo-Tea-Factory-Company-Limited-v-Zerebath-Oyaro-Marita-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2033_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries