Burial.
When tragedy strikes at work, families are plunged into grief, shock and unexpected expense, often turning to the employer for help in giving their kin a dignified funeral.
But in a recent ruling by the High Court, a clear line was drawn between empathy and legal responsibility. The court held that while employers may be required to meet certain obligations arising from workplace deaths, they cannot be expected to fund every ritual of mourning.
Sitting in Nairobi, the Employment and Labour Relations Court held that although what is reasonable may be subjective, certain costs such as a coffin and a hearse fall within the category of reasonable funeral expenses that can fairly be transferred to an employer when an employee dies in the course of work.
The Employment and Labour Relations Court held that although what is reasonable may be subjective, certain costs such as a coffin and a hearse fall within the category of reasonable funeral expenses.
“To the court, the catering, flowers, perfume and cloth expenses cannot be reasonable funeral expenses to be burdened upon an employer when an employee dies in the course of work,” the court said in a ruling delivered on January 22.
The decision arose from a case in which Dama Kalume Kadenge sued Shupazzafina Limited and First Assurance Company Limited on behalf of the estate of Emmanuel Mwaruwa, who died while on duty.
Kadenge sought compensation amounting to Sh8.7 million, being a director’s award made on November 6, 2019, burial expenses of Sh750,480 allegedly incurred in laying the deceased to rest, and interest at court rates of 14 percent from the date of the award until payment in full.
Under the burial expenses, Kadenge claimed Sh334,060 for catering, Sh30,000 for flowers, Sh4,500 for perfume and Sh4,000 for burial clothes.
To support the claim, the applicant placed before the court receipts for the coffin, flowers, perfume, clothing and catering services, relying on section 34(4) of the Work Injury Benefits Act, which provides for payment of reasonable funeral expenses. Court records show that receipts totalling Sh85,000 were produced.
“The Court would have been ready to allow the motion in terms of compensation of Sh8.7 million and funeral expenses of Sh85,000. In light of the question of limitation, the Court declines to assume jurisdiction,” the judge noted, before striking out the entire claim.
Payable compensation
Records show that Mwaruwa was employed by Shupazzafina Limited and died while at work on March 16, 2019. His death was reported to the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services, who assessed the compensation payable and made a demand for payment on November 6, 2019.
The company did not pay, prompting Kadenge to later seek and obtain letters of administration over the deceased’s estate on October 14, 2025. She moved to court the following day, seeking to have the director’s assessment adopted as a judgment of the court against the two companies jointly and severally.
She also sought payment of the award together with interest, arguing that the employer had failed to object within the statutory period and was therefore obliged under the law to meet reasonable funeral expenses.
“The respondent did not lodge an objection within 60 days. It also failed to make payment. Under section 34(5) of the Work Injury Benefits Act, an employer was under an obligation to meet reasonable funeral expenses. Funeral expenses of Sh750,480 were incurred,” the applicant argued.
In its response, First Assurance Company Limited argued that the application was defective and untenable against it, insisting that the court lacked jurisdiction and that enforcement lay with the Director of Occupational Safety and Health. The firm maintained that the court’s role under the Work Injury Benefits Act was purely appellate.
The court rejected this argument, finding that it had jurisdiction to adopt and enforce awards made by the Director under the Act. However, it made a critical observation that although the director’s award was issued on November 6, 2019, the applicant only obtained letters of administration nearly six years later and moved to court without explaining the delay.
Read: Attorney-General, PSC race to save Ruto advisers
The judge held that the claim arose out of a contract of service and was therefore subject to the three-year limitation period set out in section 89 of the Employment Act, 2007. By approaching the court more than six years after the cause of action arose, the claim was time barred.
Milimani Law Courts in Nairobi.
“The Court is therefore of the view that the action is caught up by the limitation prescription in section 89 of the Employment Act and cannot be maintained,” the court said.
Although the court went on to consider the merits of the case on the assumption that it was wrong on limitation, the ruling ultimately clarified that the law sets boundaries on what employers can lawfully and fairly be required to bear when easing the burden of laying an employee to rest.
Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.
[email protected]
