What is the right to life in an employment context? We successfully defended the Bank in this petition which raised a novel point by creating an intersection between employer liability for workplace safety in ‘high-risk’ environments and the constitutional right to life. While the Work Injury Benefit Act would have been suited to address the issue had it happened in the work-place, the petitioners alleged that the employer had breached an employee’s right to life under Article 25 of the Constitution of Kenya.

Background

The first petitioner filed the petition on her behalf and as the administrator of the estate of Benard Waweru (the deceased) and a next friend to the second petitioner, her child with the deceased.

The deceased was an employee of the respondent who was serving at the Garissa branch. He tragically lost his life in an attack while leaving a restaurant after working hours. The petitioner contended that the decision to transfer the deceased to the Garissa branch without taking into consideration the high-risk environment was a violation of the deceased’s constitutional right to life and an unfair labour practice.

Alleged breach of right to life 

The petitioner argued that the respondent ought to have known and appreciated that Garissa was a danger zone and put in place adequate measures to ensure a safe work environment for the deceased. The issue was whether by being transferred to Garissa, the respondent was jeopardizing the enjoyment of the right to life by the deceased. 

The court held that in the absence of reports, advisories or evidence from formal security sources such as the Kenya Police Service the status of security in Garissa town, there was no proof to show the respondent was complicit in the loss of life of the deceased. In addition, the deceased was not at the place of work when he tragically lost his life.

Claim that transfer to Garissa amounted to an unfair labour practice

The petitioners argued that the respondent did not favorably consider the concerns on security raised by the deceased about the transfer to Garissa and that the respondent breached the claimant’s right to fair labour practice. The court found that an employer reserves the discretion to decide the workstation for an employee and that the petitioners had not shown that the respondent was in breach of any statute or policies in stationing the deceased in Garissa.

Conclusion

The court found that the petitioner failed to prove that the respondent had violated the right to life and fair labour practice and dismissed the petition. You can access the full judgment here: https://new.keny- alaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keel-rc/2024/13513/eng@2024-12-19