Dr Silas Malemo Juma accuses the Danish Embassy of unfair termination of contract.
A former senior manager has sued the Danish Embassy in Nairobi for unfair termination of his contract after he was fired from his job in June over what he termed as trumped-up allegations.
It is the latest litigation against a diplomatic mission in Kenya over labour rights.
Dr Silas Malemo Juma says in a petition filed before the Employment and Labour relations court in Nakuru that his sacking amounted to a violation of his right to human dignity, as protected by Article 28 of the Constitution.
The former programme manager for Somalia unit further said he was subjected to humiliating and degrading treatment when he was summarily suspended and escorted from the Embassy premises in the presence of other staff members, immediately after being presented with the notice to show cause.
“That I am advised by my advocates on record, which advice I verily believe to be true, that for reasons set out herein, the entire disciplinary process was both procedurally and substantially flawed,” he said in an affidavit.
Dr Malemo added that his termination was unlawful, unfair and retaliatory and in contravention of the constitution.
He wants the court to order the Embassy to pay him 12 months' gross salary as compensation for unfair and unlawful termination, amounting to Sh7.15 million.
He is also seeking to be paid damages for alleged violation of his constitutional rights under the constitution of Kenya.
Dr Malemo said that other than his substantive duties, he was democratically elected by locally engaged staff to serve as their representative on the Joint Staff Committee.
In that capacity, and in line with the JSC’s mandate, he said he was responsible for articulating staff concerns and cooperating with management on matters affecting the general work environment, with a view to fostering a fair, safe and efficient workplace.
“Acting both in his personal capacity and in his representative role, the Petitioner made good-faith and reasonable inquiries aimed at promoting transparency and accountability within the Embassy,” he said.
Dr Malemo said he raised the matters through appropriate internal channels, principally email correspondence and meetings, all in a courteous and professional manner.
He said that the legitimate inquiries, which fell squarely within the JSC mandate, were met with hostility and resistance from senior management.
The former employee said the hostility manifested through reprimands and directives discouraging further inquiry, and the initiation of unwarranted adverse actions targeting him.
He said as a retaliation for his protected advocacy and with the aim of targeting and silencing him, senior officials allegedly orchestrated a biased and punitive disciplinary process against him.
Dr Malemo said he was served with a notice to show cause, requiring him to explain why his employment should not be terminated.
He attended the disciplinary hearing on March 21, 2025, which he said was a “procedural sham” that lasted merely eight minutes.
“The Notice to Show Cause was incurably vague, lacked the requisite particularity, and was improperly based on subjective interpretations of stale emails from as far back as 2023,” he said.
The former senior manager said the lack of specificity was exemplified by the charge that he misrepresented the bonus allocation process, a bare assertion that he says fails to detail what was said or how it supposedly undermined the Ambassador's authority.
He said he was subjected to differential and discriminatory treatment because of his status as an elected staff representative and for his conscientiously held views on workplace transparency and fairness.
Dr Malemo said he was targeted over his role and the reprimands were intended to punish and deter advocacy on behalf of local staff.
Additionally, Dr Malemo said he was never issued with prior warning letters concerning his conduct or was he placed on a performance improvement plan or behavioural improvement training or plan.
“The Petitioner was not granted an opportunity to understand the specific allegations against him and to rectify any alleged shortcomings,” he said.
He said the decision to escalate the matter directly to a notice to show cause, without any prior formal corrective action, demonstrates that the disciplinary process was not initiated in good faith to address genuine performance or behavioural issues.
Dr Malemo further faulted the disciplinary process, stating that the evidence was supplied in the Danish language without translation, subjecting him to indirect discrimination on the grounds of language and national origin and placing him at a material disadvantage contrary to Articles 27(4) and (5) of the constitution.
He said he could not mount a proper defence because of the language barrier.
He also claims that he was denied representation as he was expressly instructed not to contact any staff members during his suspension, which effectively deprived him of his statutory right under Section 41 of the Employment Act to be accompanied by a colleague of his choice.
The former employee joined the Danish Embassy in 2018 and was promoted to the position of Programme Manager in 2021.
He said his performance appraisals consistently reflected high standards of professionalism and delivery, with supervisors noting the “value addition” of his approach.
“As recently as September 2024, management formally commended his strong interpersonal skills and his constructive contributions to team dynamics,” he said.
The case follows another where employees of the Swedish embassy sued after their contracts were terminated. That is now headed to the Supreme Court.
