Justice Onesmus Makau found that Navigators Africa violated mandatory disciplinary procedures when dismissing Alice Wasonga Akera. But a clearance certificate she signed after receiving KSh180,026 blocked her multimillion-shilling compensation claims.
An employee can win an unfair dismissal case and still walk away empty-handed.
Alice Wasonga Akera has discovered that distinction after eight and a half years of service.
Her former employer, The Navigators Africa Limited, had accused her of persistent underperformance.
It eventually decided her abilities no longer matched the demands of her position.
But when the dispute reached court, the organisation faced an uncomfortable finding.
It had a valid reason for dismissal but had ignored mandatory disciplinary procedures.
On October 29, 2026, Justice Onesmus Makau delivered a judgement exposing that contradiction.
He declared Akera’s termination unfair but dismissed her monetary claims over an earlier settlement agreement.
The ruling offers a striking lesson about employment rights and the consequences of signing discharge documents.
Eight Years’ Service
Akera joined Navigators Africa on January 15, 2015, as an administrative assistant and receptionist.
Her starting monthly salary was KSh76,500, excluding housing allowance, according to her testimony.
Over the years, her salary increased following successive performance evaluations and contract renewals. By January 2023, she was earning KSh137,295 monthly.
She relied on favourable performance assessments to challenge her employer’s allegations of incompetence.
A review dated April 20, 2022, praised her improved skills, work ethics and attitude.
Another assessment, conducted on September 7, acknowledged significant improvements in delivering assigned responsibilities.
However, a December 13 review identified persistent weaknesses requiring management attention.
Her supervisor, Chief Regional Operations Officer Robert Michael Grainger, highlighted difficulties with detailed assignments.
He also questioned her problem-solving abilities and capacity to manage projects independently.
The employer subsequently modified her job description three times over approximately two years.
Regional Director Kosia Edward Mupanda said those adjustments failed to resolve her performance challenges.
He cited poor time management, inadequate attention to detail and administrative inefficiencies.
He also questioned her professional qualifications, saying she possessed only secondary education.
On May 23, 2023, Grainger informed Akera that her employment would end. Her last working day was scheduled for May 24.
The termination letter praised her hospitality but questioned her suitability for administrative responsibilities.
It declared that “the demands of the office don’t match your gifting”.
The organisation offered three months’ paid leave, running from June through August.
It said the arrangement would help her pursue other opportunities and professional training.
Hearing Failure
Akera maintained that the termination was unlawful and amounted to disguised redundancy.
However, Justice Makau rejected the redundancy argument after examining the termination letter.
He found that the organisation had terminated her employment because of performance concerns.
The dispute therefore fell under the statutory framework governing poor-performance dismissals.
The judge accepted that the employer had established a valid reason for termination.
He relied on performance assessments documenting weaknesses and opportunities provided for improvement.
But establishing a valid reason was only half the legal test. Section 41 of the Employment Act requires employers to observe procedural fairness.
An employer must explain proposed termination grounds and allow the employee to respond.
The employee must also receive an opportunity for representation during that explanation.
Justice Makau found no evidence that Navigators Africa issued a show-cause letter. Neither had it demonstrated that Akera attended a proper disciplinary hearing.
The judge cited Anthony Mkala Chitavi v Malindi Water & Sewerage Company Limited [2013]. He also relied on Postal Corporation of Kenya v Andrew K. Tanui [2019].
Those decisions reinforce an employee’s right to understand allegations and present representations. Employers must consider those representations before making termination decisions.
Navigators Africa argued that it had paid three months’ salary instead. But the judge rejected the suggestion that payment could replace procedural safeguards.
Citing Kenfreight EA Limited v Benson K. Nguti [2016], he distinguished notice obligations from disciplinary requirements.
“The payment of the salary in lieu of notice could not sanitise the unfair termination,” he held.
The court consequently declared Akera’s termination unfair under Section 45.
The Settlement
The case then turned on a document signed months after Akera’s departure. On September 6, 2023, she received a cheque worth KSh180,026.
She simultaneously signed a clearance certificate acknowledging full and final settlement.
The document discharged Navigators Africa from further employment-related claims.
Akera maintained that she had been compelled to sign the document. However, the judge found insufficient evidence supporting that allegation.
She had not denied signing the certificate or demonstrated misunderstanding.
Neither had she established coercion, fraud or another legally recognised invalidating circumstance.
Justice Makau therefore concluded that she had signed voluntarily. He found that the agreement constituted a binding contract between the parties.
The judge considered Thomas De La Rue v David Opondo Omutelema [2013]. That decision requires courts to examine whether discharge vouchers were freely executed.
He also considered Coastal Bottlers v Kimathi Mithika [2018]. The appellate decision recognised voluntarily executed discharge agreements as binding contracts.
Applying those principles, Justice Makau invoked the doctrine of estoppel. He concluded that Akera could not contradict her earlier settlement undertaking.
No Compensation
Akera had sought KSh1.647 million for unfair termination and KSh2.14 million housing arrears. She also demanded KSh549,180 in severance pay and KSh772,380 for unused leave.
Additionally, she sought notice pay, interest and other employment-related remedies.
The clearance certificate ultimately prevented her from recovering those additional amounts.
The judge nevertheless affirmed her entitlement to a certificate of service. The employer had confirmed preparing the document on June 1, 2023.
In his final orders, Justice Makau dismissed the suit without costs. He explained that Akera had been entitled to approach the court challenging her dismissal.
That challenge allowed the court to examine the employer’s compliance with employment law. The judge therefore declined to penalise her through an adverse costs order.
The judgement leaves employers with an unmistakable warning about procedural compliance.
READ ALSO: KCB Employee of 19 Years Loses Unfair Dismissal Case After Citing Serious Health Problems
Even legitimate performance concerns cannot excuse failure to conduct mandatory disciplinary hearings.
For employees, the ruling highlights the consequences of signing settlement agreements.
Such documents can significantly restrict subsequent claims when executed voluntarily.
Akera established that her employer had unfairly terminated her employment. Yet the KSh180,026 settlement ultimately defeated her multimillion-shilling compensation claims.
Her case ended with an unusual legal contradiction: she won the finding but lost the financial battle.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
