Snapshot: In 2000, a former employee of Red Lands Roses, a Kenyan flower company, filed a civil lawsuit against them claiming he had been exposed to hazardous chemicals through his spraying of herbicides and pesticides. He argued the company was negligent in its duty to provide a safe working environment. Red Land Roses countered they had provided safety equipment.  The court found for the plaintiff.

On 10 April 2000, Hiribo Mohammed Fukisha filed a civil lawsuit against Red Lands Roses in Kenya,claiming that, as an employee spraying herbicides and pesticides, he had been exposed to hazardous chemicals.  He claimed that this exposure caused serious health problems, which resulted in his retirement on medical grounds.  He maintained that the company was negligent in its duty to provide a safe working environment.  Red Lands Roses’ statement of defence claimed that safety equipment had been provided to the plaintiff and that any damage to his health was due to his failure to use the safety equipment provided to him.  The company also claimed that he had been permitted to transfer to other departments of the company following his injury, and that retirement had therefore been not necessary.

On 22 September 2006, a judgment was issued in the High Court of Kenya.  The court found that while the defendant had not neglected to provide safety equipment to the plaintiffs, the Kenyan Workmen’s Compensation Act obligates an employer to compensate an employee injured in an incident involving dangerous substances used in the course of employment.  The court awarded compensation of 806,280 Kenyan shillings, calculated in accordance with the Workmen’s Compensation Act.  The plaintiff was also awarded 5000 Kenyan shillings of special damages to cover the costs of the medical reports and hospital bills.

- Valentines a thorny issue for Kenya flower workers, Matthew Green, Reuters, 14 Feb 2002

- Kenya Flower Council: Industry Self-Regulation
- Red Lands Roses website: Company Profile

- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi: Hiribo Mohammed Fukisha v. Redland Roses Limited: Judgement [2006] , 22 Sep 2006