Kenya Airways Ordered to Pay KSh 2.79 Million After Unfairly Sacking Female Pilot

The court found Kenya Airways failed to substantiate its performance allegations, denied Samira Khan a fair hearing, and treated two male pilots more leniently. Justice Hellen Wasilwa also faulted the airline for reversing Khan’s reinstatement without lawful authority.

For Samira Khan, a career in the cockpit ended after years of training setbacks. But the evidence presented in court raised questions about why she was dismissed.

Kenya Airways could not produce key performance records or demonstrate that she received a fair hearing.

Two male pilots facing comparable concerns also received less severe disciplinary action.

Nearly eleven years after her dismissal, the Employment and Labour Relations Court found against the airline.

Justice Hellen Wasilwa awarded Khan KSh 2.79 million for unfair termination and discrimination.

The judgment, delivered on October 27, 2026, followed a claim filed by the Kenya Airline Pilots Association (KALPA).

Training Setbacks

Khan joined Kenya Airways in February 2005 as a Second Officer.

She later became a permanent First Officer and operated the Boeing 767 fleet. Her difficulties emerged as she pursued training for more advanced aircraft.

In 2009, she began training for promotion to the Boeing 777 fleet.

KALPA alleged that instructors subjected her to intimidation, humiliation, and harassment. The union also blamed disrupted schedules for undermining her training.

Her programme ended after approximately 220 hours, before completing route qualification.

Kenya Airways stopped the training in January 2010 and returned her to Boeing 767 duties.

Khan challenged the decision, but management rejected her appeal. She later pursued another opportunity to qualify for promotion to Captain.

In September 2012, she travelled to South Africa for further training. KALPA maintained that her instructor initially indicated satisfactory progress.

However, Khan was subsequently informed that she had failed.

Her final setback came during Boeing 737 command training in December 2014.

The programme was scheduled to end on January 20, 2015.

However, an instructor stopped her simulator training on January 13. The instructor cited inconsistent decisions, poor judgement and inadequate situational awareness.

Kenya Airways referred her case to its Training Review Board. The board recommended separation after meeting on May 19, 2015.

The airline said her weaknesses were non-technical and affected multiple aircraft. Her employment ended on June 5, 2015.

Missing Evidence

The airline’s defence suffered serious setbacks during cross-examination. Captain Paul Njoroge, then Director of Flight Operations, testified for Kenya Airways.

His admissions exposed gaps in the evidence supporting Khan’s dismissal.

Njoroge acknowledged that Khan was never invited to explain herself. He produced no records showing that a disciplinary hearing had taken place.

The airline also presented no performance appraisal or trainer’s report containing assessment scores. Its Training Review Board report was equally absent.

More damagingly, Njoroge admitted Khan had never received a performance improvement plan.

He also confirmed that the airline’s policies provided for remedial lessons.

The collective bargaining agreement allowed up to 250 hours for Boeing 777 conversion training.

Khan’s earlier programme, however, ended after approximately 220 hours.

Those admissions weakened the airline’s claim that dismissal was justified. They also raised questions about its failure to offer further remedial training.

Unequal Treatment

The court also examined how Kenya Airways treated two male pilots reviewed alongside Khan. Their cases became central to the discrimination question.

Captain John Koiti faced technical and non-technical performance concerns.

These included poor situational awareness, an allegation also levelled against Khan. Yet the airline retained Koiti and issued him a warning.

Another pilot, Milton Muturi, faced failed examinations and missed mandatory training. Management also alleged that he had flown with an expired licence.

Despite those concerns, Muturi received a final performance warning and counselling.

Khan, by contrast, lost her job following the same review process. The airline’s own witness confirmed the different disciplinary outcomes. Justice Wasilwa considered the disparity significant.

The judgement referred to “differential treatment between the grievant and others.” The court consequently awarded Khan KSh 1 million in damages for discrimination.

Reinstatement Reversed

Khan’s case took another turn when Kenya Airways reinstated her in August 2017. A letter dated August 2 restored her as a First Officer. She was assigned to the airline’s Embraer fleet following management’s consideration of her appeal.

That reprieve ended on February 9, 2018, when the chief executive reversed the decision. The airline argued that its Human Resource Director had acted without proper consultation. It maintained that the reinstatement had breached internal procedures.

Justice Wasilwa rejected the unilateral reversal. She found that the Human Resource Director had communicated management’s reinstatement decision. The chief executive therefore lacked authority to revoke it unilaterally.

The judge also considered Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act. Section 41 requires employers to explain allegations and allow employees to respond. Employees must also have an opportunity for representation during the process. Section 45 requires a valid reason and fair procedure before termination.

The court found Kenya Airways had failed to meet those obligations. Justice Wasilwa declared Khan’s termination “both unfair and unjustified”.

She awarded twelve months’ salary, calculated at KSh 119,350 monthly.

That amounted to KSh1,432,200 in compensation. The court added KSh 358,050 for three months’ salary in lieu of notice.

It further awarded KSh1 million for discrimination, bringing the total to KSh 2,790,250.

The airline must also issue Khan with a certificate of service. It was ordered to pay costs and interest at court rates.

READ ALSO: Doctor Awarded KSh3.5 Million After Court Finds Pregnancy Discrimination in Dismissal

The award fell below KALPA’s original demands. The union had sought KSh 5 million in general damages.

It also claimed training and licence renewal expenses, alongside higher salary-based compensation. The judgement made no separate award for those additional claims.

The ruling offers a clear warning to employers handling performance-related dismissals.

Serious allegations cannot replace documented assessments, fair hearings, and consistent disciplinary decisions.

For Khan, the court has now established that Kenya Airways breached those obligations.

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