By BOB WASWANI
March 19, 2026| For seven years and six months, George Clement Onyango stood guard in the darkness while others slept. As a night watchman employed by Riley Falcon Security Services Ltd, he was the invisible shield protecting property and lives through the long, lonely hours from dusk till dawn. He worked public holidays when families gathered. He worked overtime without complaint. He surrendered Kshs. 18,000 of his modest earnings as a uniform deposit.
Then, on July 23, 2019, Onyango’s life changed forever.
Cycling home after another night of duty, Onyango was involved in an accident that fractured his mandible and knocked out seven teeth—three upper incisors and four lower incisors. Medical examiners later assessed his permanent incapacity at 30%. When the Directorate of Occupational Health and Services assessed his compensation at Kshs. 501,501- on July 6, 2023, Onyango must have believed that the system would acknowledge his sacrifice.
But what followed exposed the vulnerability of workers who trust processes they do not control.
Behind Onyango’s back, without his knowledge or input, his employer requested a second medical examination. A different doctor examined him and produced a report that omitted one of his lost teeth—recording three lower incisors instead of four. Based on this revised report, the compensation was reduced by half to Kshs. 250,747.20, and the incapacity assessment lowered to 15%.
Onyango was never informed. He was never invited to challenge the findings. He never had the opportunity to point out that teeth, once lost in adulthood, do not regenerate. The reassessment was simply completed, filed, and forgotten—by everyone except Onyango, who waited for compensation that never arrived.
When he eventually discovered what had transpired, the statutory timelines for objection had already expired. As Justice Nzioki wa Makau would later observe in his judgment delivered on March 9, 2026, “Because the Claimant slept on his rights the Court is hamstrung to interfere with the second assessment.”
But Onyango’s fight extended beyond the workplace accident. His claim before the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Kisumu revealed a pattern of alleged exploitation spanning his entire employment period. He sought Kshs. 2,027,403 for unpaid overtime covering those endless 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. shifts. He claimed compensation for 52 rest days annually that never materialized. He demanded payment for work done during public holidays. He sought the return of his uniform deposit—money deducted from a man already earning modest wages to guard property.
His employer’s response was methodical. Onyango was engaged on yearly contracts, they argued. His payslips reflected overtime payments on some occasions. He had proceeded on leave twice—between August and September 2021, and again in July and August 2023. His September 2023 payslip showed leave pay of Kshs. 17,413. The company had made NSSF contributions, which under section 35 of the Employment Act excluded entitlement to service pay. The claim for uniform deposit lacked contractual basis. And crucially, they argued, any claims spanning over seven years were time-barred under section 90 of the Employment Act.
Lilian Mundu, the Human Resource Manager, testified that upon receiving Onyango’s resignation on November 8, 2023, the company cleared him and paid all final dues as reflected in the clearance document dated November 11, 2023. Regarding the accident, she stated that the insurer arranged for the second medical examination, which prompted the reassessment. Payment never processed, she claimed, because Onyango failed to provide medical receipts and a police abstract.
The 2nd Respondent, through Kisumu County Occupational Health and Safety Officer Edward Midimu, raised an even more fundamental question: did the accident even qualify as an occupational injury under WIBA? Midimu testified that since the accident occurred while Onyango was riding his personal bicycle on a public road commuting home from work, it was essentially a traffic accident rather than an occupational accident. The reassessment, he maintained, was undertaken after comparing the two medical reports and finding the first lacked sufficient detail. Onyango had also healed to some extent, he claimed, justifying the reduced incapacity assessment.
Justice Makau’s analysis cut through competing narratives to deliver a measured verdict.
On the WIBA claim, the Court acknowledged that while Onyango initially had a strong case, his failure to object to the reassessment within the statutory period proved fatal. The second assessment, however “conspired” between the Respondents, stood as the operative award. The Court ordered payment of Kshs. 250,747within 14 days, failing which interest would accrue at 14% per annum from the date of filing suit.
On the employment claims, the Court found mixed results. The Kshs. 18,000 uniform deposit was deemed payable—money that should never have been deducted in the first place. Salary for August 2023 amounting to Kshs. 15,141 was also awarded, representing work already performed but presumably unpaid.
However, claims for overtime, public holidays, and off-days failed for lack of particulars—Onyango had not specified which days he worked beyond contractual hours or on public holidays. The leave claim could not be ascertained since he admittedly proceeded on leave twice, and records showed some leave payments. Gratuity was unavailable as Onyango had resigned rather than retired, and NSSF contributions excluded service pay under the law.
In his final disposition, Justice Makau awarded:
- Kshs. 250,747.20 for the uncontested WIBA claim, payable within 14 days with interest at 14% per annum from filing date if delayed
- Kshs. 15,141.94 for August 2023 salary
- Kshs. 18,000 for uniform deposit
- Costs of the suit
- Interest on the salary and uniform deposit at court rates from judgment date
The judgment in Cause E071 of 2024 offers no happy endings—only the cold arithmetic of what the law could salvage from seven years of labour, a life-altering injury, and a compensation process that unfolded without the claimant’s participation. Onyango received less than half the original compensation assessment. His terminal employment claims largely failed for want of particulars or limitation. His uniform deposit returned, but only after litigation.
What the judgment cannot capture is what seven missing teeth mean to a man who can never grow them back. What it cannot quantify is the indignity of discovering that your body’s permanent alteration was assessed and reassessed in rooms you never entered, by processes you never witnessed. What it cannot calculate is the weight of years spent standing guard while your own rights slipped away unnoticed.