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
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Mutual Separation and Confidentiality Deed was voluntarily entered into and binding on the Claimant
- 2.Depending on (a), whether the Claimant was unfairly and unlawfully terminated from employment
- 3.Is the Claimant entitled to the reliefs sought?
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
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations jurisdiction (Employment Act; reliefs pleaded under sections 41, 43, 45 and 51 of the Employment Act)
Relief refused
#Declarations that the termination was unfair, unlawful, wrongful, unprocedural, illegal and that the Mutual Separation Deed is null and void
The Deed was voluntarily executed and binding; the claim of coercion was not proved
Compensation for unfair termination (Kshs. 4,872,000), leave pay, pension, medical insurance and general damages
These reliefs flow from a finding of unfair termination, which the court did not make
Costs of the suit
Each party was ordered to bear its own costs
Costs
Each party will bear its own costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
All things considered, the Court finds that the Claimant executed the Mutual Separation Deed voluntarily and is bound by the same. Accordingly, the Court is enjoined to give effect to the intention of the parties herein.
He cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time.
The upshot of the foregoing is that the Claimant's suit is dismissed in its entirety with an order that each party will bear its own costs.
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 this judgment.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently dates the meeting with the Claimant and related emails as 2024 in places and 2022 in others, e.g. the Deed is dated 30th June 2024 in one passage and 30th June 2022 elsewhere
The judgment states the Respondent 'received' Kshs. 5,000,662 under the Deed, which on the record appears to be an error - it was the Claimant who received the settlement sum
The judgment inconsistently dates the Respondent's Memorandum of Response as 24th July 2024 while describing a suit arising from a June 2022 separation
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.