The Netherlands’ Embassy in Kenya has lost a bid to block a former cook from suing and claiming Sh2.7 million from the mission while citing diplomatic immunity.
The ambassador of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the embassy argued that diplomatic immunity protects them from civil suits.
The embassy denied being the employer of the cook, Rachael Jambiha Ulira, arguing her employment contracts were signed by the ambassador.
However, the Employment and Labour Relations Court ruled that it had the power to hear the case because the cook was locally employed and her contract was under Kenyan law.
Ms Ulira sued in September 2025, claiming she was unfairly terminated and sought terminal dues.
She is seeking Sh2.7 million compensation, a certificate of service and interest on the claimed amount.
Court documents show she worked as a cook from January 2019 to June 20, 2025.
The legal dispute will examine the rights of locally hired staff at foreign missions against diplomatic immunity, which provides a cover for diplomats.
‘I make a finding that this court is seized of the requisite jurisdiction to entertain, to hear and to determine the suit,’ said Justice Agnes Nzei, clearing the way for the cook to pursue her claim. The court dismissed the preliminary objection and ordered the case to be fast-tracked for hearing.
The envoy and the embassy faulted the suit and asked the court to drop the case. They argued that the ambassador was protected by Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
The embassy and the envoy said Ms Ulira’s employment and termination were done by the ambassador in his official capacity as head of the mission, arguing the action did not constitute a “professional or commercial activity” outside diplomatic duties.
They argued that the ambassador could not be compelled to give evidence and that the embassy lacked legal capacity to be sued.
“A diplomatic agent and head of mission, is shielded by this absolute testimonial immunity. This renders any attempt to litigate the facts against him fundamentally unfair and procedurally untenable, as the court would be unable to receive his evidence, thereby confirming the jurisdictional bar,” said the embassy.
They disputed that an employer-employee relationship existed between Ms Ulira and the embassy, saying her contracts were signed with the ambassador. They maintained that neither respondent had waived immunity.
Ms Ulira’s claim says she earned a basic monthly salary of Sh108,294, paid into her bank account.
She also alleges that the ambassador and the embassy did not provide housing or pay a housing allowance, and failed to pay her for overtime worked on June 16 and 17, 2025, during an official luncheon.
She further claims payment for 16 outstanding leave days. The court has not decided whether the dismissal was unfair or whether any money is owed.
But the court found the employment documents placed both respondents at the centre of the dispute.
The ruling notes three contracts issued to the cook, beginning on January 21, 2019, September 14, 2020, and July 1, 2024. The latest contract named Ambassador Henk Jan Bakker as employer and said it would end when his tour of duty in Kenya ended.
Ms Ulira’s NSSF statement, however, identified the embassy as her employer, while her payslips were issued in the ambassador’s name.
“It is worthy noting that the claimant was locally employed, and that her contract of employment falls within the purview of the Kenyan law, and in particular the Employment Act,” said Justice Nzei as she declined to uphold the concept of absolute immunity.
It also relied on the Court of Appeal’s position that immunity is restrictive, not absolute. It classified the employment contracts as private transactions.
The legal approach follows earlier Court of Appeal decisions involving locally recruited staff at the Swedish and Belgian embassies, which also considered whether employment disputes could proceed despite immunity claims.
The case is scheduled for mention on December 16, 2026.