A Nairobi court has received a case where a former executive at Ecart Services Kenya Limited, the parent company of online retailer Jumia, claims to have been pushed out of his job partly because he doesn’t speak French.
Mr James Njine Kamau, whose last posting was Chief Operations Officer (COO) and who left Jumia late last year, says in a case filed on Tuesday that Jumia’s CEO once spoke to him about his preference for leaders who can speak French.
“On or about August 2025, the CEO summoned me to his office and intimated that I should consider seeking employment elsewhere, stating that he preferred French-speaking management personnel, as they were ‘easier to deal with’ than English-speaking colleagues,” Mr Njine states in his witness statement.
“... this conduct was discriminatory, arbitrary, targeted me on the basis of linguistic and cultural identity, and was clearly designed to marginalise me, undermine my professional standing, and impede my career progression,” he adds.
But Ecart denies any wrongdoing. It said in an email on Thursday that even though it would not directly respond to issues raised by Mr Kamau as they are now active in court, the firm observes “the highest standards of corporate governance and labour laws in Kenya”.
“We are committed to a diverse, inclusive, and merit-based workplace and do not tolerate discrimination of any kind,” said an email by a Mr Ibrahim Mbogo in response to our queries.
“Jumia cannot provide specific comments on the allegations or the merits of the case at this time, as we respect the judicial process and will present our defence formally in court,” he further noted.
Mr Njine’s lawyers tell the court that their client was subjected to “overt and covert acts of racial discrimination”.
Mr Njine’s case was filed at the Chief Magistrate’s court in Miliamani, Nairobi, and he is seeking at least Sh14.1 million in dues from Ecart.
This comprises Sh8.7 million as compensation for unfair termination of employment; Sh2.2 million as a three-month salary in lieu of notice; Sh735,743 for accrued but untaken leave days; and Sh2.5 million as an equivalent to 15 days’ salary for every year of the seven he served at the company.
Equally, he wants the court to find that Ecart’s conduct violated the Employment Act and the Constitution of Kenya.
Furthermore, Mr Njine wants “immediate and full vesting” of 4,000 shares entitled to him under the virtual restricted stock unit (VRSU) programme. He attaches a document showing that the Jumia shares were granted in December 2024 and that they would be vested unto him in December 2026.
He tells the court that he was first employed by Ecart in October 2018. After finishing his probation, he was appointed Commercial Planner on January 24, 2019. In 2022, he was made Head of Commercial Operations and also the Head of Performance and Planning.
In December 2023, he was added a further role of Head of General Merchandise. On December 17, 2024, he was made Chief Commercial Officer.
However, he says, he was no longer at ease from May 2024 when a new CEO was appointed.
“I became the target of arbitrary, hostile, and demeaning treatment, notwithstanding my consistent record of exemplary service. The new management engaged in a sustained course of conduct calculated to marginalise, humiliate, and professionally undermine my authority, credibility, and capacity to execute my duties effectively,” Mr Njine claims.
Besides the remark about preference for French-speaking bosses, Mr Njine says more humiliation would follow, and one tactic used was through subjecting him to a performance improvement plan (PIP) which he claims was “fundamentally flawed”.
“The PIP was procedurally defective, opaque, lacked clear or measurable performance indicators, and was manifestly structured to create a pretext for failure rather than to provide meaningful support or genuine guidance to enhance my performance,” he argues, adding that he surmised that the PIP was designed to make him resign.
“The respondent further escalated its hostile conduct through punitive actions, including the deliberate exclusion of myself from high-level meetings and strategic decision-making forums, which were integral to the execution of my mandate as Chief Commercial Officer,” says Mr Njine.
“Such actions were not isolated, but systematic, coordinated, and deliberate, intended to erode my authority, diminish my professional standing, and create a humiliating, hostile, and untenable working environment.”
He was later presented with a separation agreement that he was to sign and quit with a Sh3.2 million package, but he refused to sign it. As per the agreement, his contract would be terminated on December 31, 2025.
“I expressly rejected the proposed separation agreement, recognising it as an attempt to retrospectively justify breaches of my employment contract, statutory rights, and constitutional protections,” Mr Njine tells the court.
He then quit.
“As a direct result of the Respondent’s orchestrations, my employment contract became untenable and the working environment intolerable, leaving me with no reasonable alternative but to tender an involuntary resignation,” states Mr Njine.
Mr Njine says Ecart’s actions were tantamount to constructive dismissal because a stifling work environment was created.
His lawyers sent a demand letter on December 4, 2025, asking for his dues.
The letter read in part: “Your actions have stripped our client of the dignity, authority, and responsibilities inherent in his role, and the company has wilfully engineered a working environment that no reasonable employee could be expected to endure.”
Mr Njine tells the court: “Due to the Respondent’s failure and/or refusal to respond or resolve the matters raised in the demand letter, I was compelled to institute this claim before this honourable court to seek redress and enforce my entitlements.”
Besides the monetary compensation and the shares, Mr Njine has also asked the court to award him general and special damages “arising from Ecart’s unmerited and unlawful conduct”.
He also wants declaration that Ecart subjected him “to unfair labour practices through deliberate marginalisation, imposition of a sham performance improvement plan, exclusion from strategic and decision-making forums and clandestine steps to replace him while he was still in active employment”.
