Kimingini Gold Mining Co. Ltd v Macleod (Civ. App. No. 42-37)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The court held that permanent incapacitation under the Mining Ordinance means incapacity to work or earn wages, not merely physical disability, unless it affects wage-earning ability. The respondent failed to prove permanent incapacitation where he resumed work at full pay and obtained subsequent employment at comparable wages. Hospital expenses and half salary paid as an act of grace cannot be set off against compensation. The £750 maximum in section 86(2)(a) is a ceiling on total compensation awarded, not a base figure from which percentages are calculated. Compensation was reduced from the magistrate's assessment.
Outcome
Compensation reduced but respondent still entitled to reduced award
Facts
On 24 January 1937, the respondent, employed as a sampler by the appellant mining company at Sh. 455 per month, sustained an injury to his left hand resulting in loss of his middle finger and portion of the metacarpal bone. He was off duty for 64 days receiving half pay. Upon return he was restored to full pay as an act of grace, though the company stated he was not of the same value. He left employment on 2 July 1937 by his own desire. Medical evidence estimated his permanent disability at 10% and his permanent inability to resume his previous work at 10%, influenced by surgical loss, diminished output capacity, psychological impact, inability to play games, and disfigurement. He subsequently obtained employment as an assayer at Sh. 425-450 per month. The magistrate held an inquiry under section 85 of the Mining Ordinance and assessed compensation under section 86, finding permanent incapacitation. The company appealed the assessment.
Issues
- Whether the magistrate erred in assessing compensation under section 86(2)(a) of the Mining Amendment Ordinance on the basis of permanent incapacitation.
- Whether the sum of £750 mentioned in section 86(2)(a) is a maximum of compensation that may be awarded or a maximum from which a percentage may be computed.
- Whether hospital expenses and half salary paid as an act of grace can be set off against compensation.
Orders
- Appeal allowed in part.
- Compensation assessed by the magistrate reduced to Sh 655/20.
- Each party to bear their own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (6)
- Mining Ordinance 1933 s.85
- Mining Ordinance 1933 s.86
- Mining (Amendment) Ordinance 1934 s.86(1)
- Mining (Amendment) Ordinance 1934 s.86(2)(a)
- Mining (Amendment) Ordinance 1934 s.86(2)(b)
- Workmen's Compensation Act 1906
Cases cited (5)
- Calico Printers Association Ltd v Higham [1912] 1 KB 93
- Birmingham Railway Carriage and Waggon Co v Round (1917) BWCC 612
- Curry v Doxford and Sons Ltd (1915) BWCC 19
- Cardiff Corporation v Hall [1911] 1 KB 1009
- Gaffney v Chorley Colliery Co [1922] LJKB 1
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.