Ondimu v Lake Turkana Windpower (Cause E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1745 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court ruled that a settlement deal you negotiate, sign, and get paid for is binding, so the employee's unfair dismissal claim failed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Mutual Separation and Confidentiality Deed was procured through coercion and undue influence
The Deed was voluntarily entered into and is binding; the coercion claim failed
The court traced the email correspondence showing that although the Claimant was initially displeased with the proposed separation, he actively negotiated, tracked changes on the draft Deed, proposed amendments which were adopted, and confirmed agreement ('We are in agreement'). He then received the settlement sum of Kshs 5,000,662 and stayed silent for over a year before issuing a demand letter. Being an Advocate of the High Court, he was aware of the document's legal implications. The email record discounted his assertions of coercion.
Whether the Claimant was unfairly and unlawfully terminated
No; the employment ceased by mutual consent under clause 2.1 of the Deed, so the unfair termination claim could not be sustained
Having found the Deed valid, the court held that the Claimant accepted its terms, including cessation of the employment relationship by mutual consent effective 30th June 2022, and the waiver of further claims. Having accepted payment of the settlement amount he was bound by the other terms and could not approbate and reprobate. Assertions of unfair and unlawful termination therefore failed.
Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
The reliefs were unsustainable as they flow from unfair termination; only the certificate of service was ordered
Since the court found no unfair or unlawful termination, all declaratory and financial reliefs predicated on such a finding fell away. However, the court noted the Claimant's evidence that no certificate of service was issued, and, invoking section 51(1) of the Employment Act, ordered the Respondent to issue the certificate within 7 days notwithstanding the dismissal of the suit.
Legal principles established
#- A mutual separation agreement voluntarily negotiated and executed by a party is binding and cannot be set aside on a bare allegation of coercion that is not proved
- A party who accepts the benefits of a settlement deed cannot simultaneously challenge its validity - approbate and reprobate
Court orders
#- 1.The Claimant's suit is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.Each party will bear its own costs
- 3.The Respondent shall issue the Claimant with a certificate of service in line with Section 51(1) of the Employment Act, within 7 days from the date of the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations jurisdiction (Employment Act; reliefs pleaded under sections 41, 43, 45 and 51 of the Employment Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ondimu v Lake Turkana Windpower (Cause E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1745 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1745/eng@2025-06-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.