West Nairobi School Ordered to Pay American Chaplain KSh 982,607 for Unfair Termination

A Nairobi labour court found that West Nairobi School ended Janetta Mackins’ contract without proving a valid reason or giving her a fair hearing. The American chaplain was awarded USD 7,576 after her two-year contract ended one year early.

West Nairobi School has been ordered to pay an American chaplain USD 7,576 (KSh 982,607) after unfairly terminating her employment.

Justice Onesmus Makau ruled that Janetta Mackins’ two-year contract was ended unilaterally by the school.

The Employment and Labour Relations Court delivered the judgement in Nairobi on September 28, 2026.

Mackins, a United States citizen, joined the school as an Elementary Chaplain.

Her contract began on July 1, 2023, and was due to expire June 30, 2025.

She earned USD 1,894 monthly under the fixed-term employment agreement.

The Network of International Christian Schools was also named as the second respondent.

The case turned on what happened during two meetings in April 2024.

Mackins said the school decided to release her before the contract expired.

The respondents argued that she had instead agreed to leave through mutual separation.

That difference became crucial because the court required the respondents to prove their version.

Sudden Departure

Mackins told the court that she expected to remain employed until June 2025.

She had made significant family and personal commitments based on that expected employment period.

Her son had enrolled at Daystar University, while Mackins had joined a flight-training programme.

Mackins’ Kenyan work permit was due to remain valid until September 25, 2025.

Her son’s student pass was similarly valid until November 23, 2025.

Mackins said she was summoned to a meeting with school director Thomas Krol.

She said the meeting followed an earlier discussion about ending her employment prematurely.

According to her evidence, the termination decision had already been made.

Krol presented a different account when he testified before the court.

He said the school had raised concerns about Mackins’ work and ideological alignment.

He also said Mackins had expressed frustrations about the employment relationship.

Krol maintained that the parties subsequently agreed to separate.

He said Mackins would remain until the academic year ended, while receiving salary and insurance.

The school would also purchase her air ticket back to the United States.

The court, however, found a serious problem with that account.

Crucial Minutes

The respondents failed to produce minutes from the April 16 meeting.

Instead, they relied on minutes recorded during the following day’s meeting.

Those minutes contained a statement that became central to the judgement.

“Decision discussed yesterday was to release you from the 2-years contract.”

Justice Makau found those words inconsistent with the claim of mutual separation.

The judge found that Mackins had not been presented with a genuine choice about remaining employed.

Instead, she appeared to be responding to an employment decision already reached by management.

The court consequently rejected the respondents’ argument that she voluntarily left through mutual agreement.

Justice Makau said mutual separation requires more than conversations about leaving employment.

It must be voluntary, unequivocal, informed and supported by clear evidence of consensus.

That evidence was missing from the case.

Krol admitted during cross-examination that there was no signed separation agreement.

The court therefore found that Mackins had not voluntarily surrendered her contractual rights.

Instead, the school had unilaterally ended her employment roughly one year before expiry.

No Valid Reason

The court next examined whether the school had established a lawful reason for termination.

Under section 45 of the Employment Act, employers must establish a valid and fair reason.

They must also demonstrate that termination followed a fair procedure.

The school referred to a lack of alignment between Mackins and the institution.

But the court found that the respondents had produced insufficient evidence supporting that explanation.

There was no warning letter showing misconduct during Mackins’ employment.

There was also no evidence demonstrating poor performance or missed performance targets.

Nor did the school show that she had undergone an unsuccessful performance improvement process.

The judge consequently found that the alleged lack of alignment lacked sufficient evidentiary support.

The court also considered international labour standards governing employer-initiated termination.

Justice Makau referred to ILO Convention 158, particularly its requirements for valid reasons.

The judgement also considered the employee’s right to respond before termination.

That principle became especially important when the court examined the procedure followed.

Hearing Came Late

The court found that the respondents failed to prove that Mackins received a fair hearing.

She was not told that the meeting constituted a disciplinary hearing.

She was also not given specific allegations requiring a formal response before termination.

Nor was she given evidence supporting the alleged compatibility concerns raised against her.

The judge therefore found that the April 17 meeting could not cure the earlier decision.

The decision to terminate her employment had already been made before she could defend herself.

Justice Makau consequently declared the termination unfair and unlawful.

The court also found violations involving dignity, fair labour practices and fair administrative action.

Mackins had sought considerably more than the eventual award.

She had sought salary for the remaining contract period and twelve months’ compensation.

She also sought notice pay, exemplary damages and compensation for other alleged losses.

The court declined those additional claims.

Instead, Justice Makau awarded four months’ salary as compensation for the unfair termination.

At USD 1,894 (KSh 245,651) monthly, that amounted to USD 7,576 (KSh 982,607) before statutory deductions.

The judge considered the disruption caused by the premature termination when assessing compensation.

That included Mackins’ return to America and interruption of her flight training.

The court also considered disruption to her son’s university education and her search for another job abroad.

The court declined additional notice pay because Mackins remained employed until June 30, 2024.

The contract had provided for thirty days’ notice or salary in lieu of notice.

West Nairobi School and the other respondent were also ordered to pay costs.

Interest would accrue at court rates from the date of judgement.

The judgement carries a broader lesson for employers handling fixed-term contracts.

A departure cannot simply be labelled “mutual” when evidence shows an employer-made decision.

READ ALSO: Court Orders Cellulant Kenya to Pay Ex-Manager KSh15.9 Million After Unfair Redundancy

The court required clear evidence that Mackins knowingly and voluntarily agreed to leave.

In this case, the employer’s own minutes became central to that conclusion.

They showed that the decision to release Mackins had already been discussed before her response.

The absence of a written separation agreement further weakened the respondents’ position.

The court ultimately found that Mackins’ contract was terminated by employer action.

Because neither the reason nor the procedure satisfied the law, the termination was declared unfair and unlawful.

PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.