Latest News
Court Orders National Police Service to Pay Injured Officer KSh 1.9 Million After Rejecting SHA Defence
Justice Agnes Kitiku Nzei rules that police authorities cannot shift responsibility for an unchallenged workplace injury award to SHA, ordering payment of KSh 1.9 million, interest, and legal costs.
The National Police Service must pay an injured police officer KSh 1.9 million in workplace compensation.
The Employment and Labour Relations Court rejected the police service’s attempt to transfer liability to SHA.
Justice Agnes Kitiku Nzei ruled that the police authorities remained responsible for the compensation.
The decision followed their failure to honour an award issued by occupational safety authorities.
The court adopted the assessment and entered judgement for Nicholas Manza Makaya.
He sustained permanent injuries while undergoing police training at Ngong Sport Training Camp.
The ruling clarifies how employees can enforce compensation awards when employers refuse payment.
The Injury
Makaya sustained the injuries on May 17, 2022, during training at Ngong Sport Training Camp.
He suffered a right collarbone injury, resulting in Type C acromioclavicular joint disruption.
The injury left him with permanent incapacity, according to the subsequent medical assessment.
The National Police Service reported the accident to occupational safety authorities on June 18, 2022.
The notification identified the police service as Makaya’s employer and initiated compensation proceedings.
On April 12, 2023, the Director assessed Makaya’s permanent disability at 35%.
The assessment established his compensation entitlement at KSh 1,903,440.
The Director communicated the decision to the Deputy Inspector General, Kenya Police Service.
The accompanying document demanded payment of the compensation assessed for the injured officer.
However, the police service failed to pay despite subsequent demands and follow-ups.
The Defence
With compensation outstanding, Makaya approached the Employment and Labour Relations Court.
His application, dated November 13, 2025, sought enforcement of the Director’s assessment.
He wanted the court to adopt the award and enter judgement against police authorities.
He also requested interest at court rates and costs of the proceedings.
The National Police Service did not dispute the injury or disability assessment.
Instead, its defence introduced the Social Health Authority into the compensation dispute.
In a replying affidavit sworn on June 23, 2026, Elizabeth Marube presented the respondents’ position.
She confirmed Makaya’s enlistment into the service on June 30, 2007.
She also acknowledged the accident and subsequent 35% disability assessment.
However, she argued that the compensation claim remained with SHA for settlement.
The respondents consequently denied responsibility for paying the KSh 1,903,440 award.
No Escape
Justice Nzei identified one central question: whether Makaya deserved the orders he sought.
Her determination turned on the distinction between assessing compensation and enforcing existing awards.
Under WIBA, the Director determines liability and assesses compensation following workplace injury investigations.
Section 16 restricts courts from determining initial liability and compensation in workplace injury claims.
Sections 23, 28 and 30 establish the Director’s investigative and assessment responsibilities.
However, the judge observed that WIBA does not expressly prescribe enforcement procedures.
She nevertheless rejected the suggestion that this omission stripped the employment court of jurisdiction.
The judge relied on her earlier decision involving Marcus Curvey Ojango and Kenya Revenue Authority.
In that 2024 decision, she explained the court’s constitutional jurisdiction over employment disputes.
She also distinguished statutory restrictions from enforcing established compensation entitlements.
The judge subsequently cited Amir Swaleh Omar v Mackezie Maritime (E.A) Limited.
That 2022 decision addressed employees whose employers refused to honour compensation assessments.
Justice Nzei adopted its reasoning, questioning whether injured employees should remain powerless.
She emphasised that an unchallenged assessment creates an enforceable entitlement.
The judge reproduced the earlier court’s conclusion that assessed compensation becomes the employee’s right.
She explained that an employee could approach court seeking judgement, reflecting the Director’s assessment.
Such judgement would produce a decree capable of execution against the employer.
The judge further explained that refusing payment creates a dispute over liquidated compensation.
That dispute, she held, falls within the Employment and Labour Relations Court’s jurisdiction.
SHA Rejected
The judge was particularly dismissive of the attempt to shift responsibility to SHA.
She found that the Director had already determined liability against the first and second respondents.
Neither respondent had challenged that determination under Section 51 of WIBA.
The judge also examined the original accident notification submitted by the police.
She noted that the National Police Service had itself completed and submitted DOSH Form 1.
That document identified the police service as Makaya’s employer during the assessment process.
The judge consequently found no basis for transferring liability to SHA.
Her reasoning also rested on the principle of privity of contract.
She observed that Makaya had no employment relationship with the alleged third party.
He was equally not party to any contractual arrangements between the police and SHA.
The judge explained that such arrangements could not extinguish the officer’s compensation entitlement.
“There was no privity of contract of employment between the Applicant and the alleged third party,” she stated.
The court consequently held the National Police Service and Inspector General legally responsible.
The Orders
Having rejected the respondents’ arguments, Justice Nzei allowed Makaya’s application.
She adopted the Director’s April 12, 2023, assessment as a judgement of the court.
The judge entered judgement against the first and second respondents for KSh 1,903,440.
She directed that a decree should issue for enforcement under the Civil Procedure Rules.
Importantly, interest would accrue at court rates from November 13, 2025.
That was the date Makaya filed his application, rather than the original assessment date.
The judge further awarded him the costs of the proceedings, subject to agreement or taxation.
The ruling was delivered in Nairobi on October 23, 2026.
The Attorney General was named as the third respondent but escaped the monetary judgement.
The court’s orders specifically imposed payment obligations upon the first and second respondents.
The decision reinforces the importance of statutory compensation obligations under Kenya’s workplace injury framework.
Section 26(4) of WIBA requires employers or insurers to settle claims within ninety days.
For injured workers, the ruling provides an important route towards recovering unpaid compensation.
It confirms that administrative assessments need not remain unenforced when employers refuse payment.
For Makaya, the decision finally converts his outstanding assessment into an enforceable court judgement.
The court’s message is clear: employers cannot escape established compensation obligations by shifting responsibility elsewhere.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.