Court declines bid to jail Saudi ambassador over millions owed to former embassy employee

Court declines bid to jail Saudi ambassador over millions owed to former embassy employee

The judge ruled that summoning the ambassador for committal to civil jail was not a viable option, adding that contempt proceedings could not be sustained against the diplomat in his personal capacity.

The Employment and Labour Relations Court has declined an application seeking to have the Saudi Arabian ambassador to Kenya committed to civil jail over the embassy’s failure to pay a former employee millions of shillings awarded in a 2019 judgment.

Justice Hellen Wasilwa rejected an application by former Saudi Arabian embassy employee Abdikadir Mohamed Abdullahi, also known as Abdikadir Mohamed, who wanted Ambassador Khalid bin Abdullah Al-Salman summoned to explain why he should not be jailed for allegedly disobeying court orders.

The judge ruled that summoning the ambassador for committal to civil jail was not a viable option, adding that contempt proceedings could not be sustained against the diplomat in his personal capacity.

Justice Wasilwa observed that the appropriate procedure would have been to summon the respondent to show cause why execution of the decree should not proceed rather than issue a warrant of arrest against the ambassador.

“The Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia knows who is responsible for satisfying the decree,” the judge said, according to the court’s ruling.

Abdikadir had asked the court to commit the ambassador to prison for six months or for such period as it considered appropriate. He also sought orders for the sequestration of the embassy’s property over its alleged failure to comply with the judgment.

Latest Stories

The dispute arose after the embassy terminated Abdikadir’s employment in 2014, prompting him to sue, arguing that the decision was unlawful and had been made without due process.

In a judgment delivered on July 19, 2019, the court found that his termination was unfair and had been triggered by his complaint over salary arrears, which the embassy had acknowledged during the proceedings.

The court ordered the embassy to pay the former employee $310,282 (approximately Sh40 million) and 54,000 Saudi riyals (about Sh1.8 million) by September 19, 2019. The award was to attract interest at 14 per cent per annum from February 5, 2015, until payment in full, alongside the costs of the suit.

The former employee said the costs were subsequently taxed at Sh1,042,540.70.

Abdikadir told the court that the judgment had neither been varied nor set aside and remained valid and binding.

He said his lawyers extracted a decree dated August 14, 2020, and served it, together with the judgment, on the embassy through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on October 28, 2020.

He further relied on a letter dated March 13, 2023, in which the Principal Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign and Diaspora Affairs confirmed that the decree had been forwarded to the embassy.

Despite these efforts, he argued, the embassy had failed to pay the award for more than five years.

Abdikadir accused the ambassador of knowingly disobeying the court orders, saying attempts to attach the embassy’s property had been unsuccessful despite warrants being issued.

He argued that the ambassador should personally appear in court to explain the alleged disobedience, warning that failure to punish contempt would undermine the authority of the court and deny him the benefit of his judgment.

The former embassy employee also maintained that diplomatic immunity did not shield the embassy from proceedings arising from an employment contract, arguing that diplomatic representatives were required to respect Kenyan laws, including the Employment Act.

The embassy opposed the application, arguing that it was an attempt to enforce what it considered a null and void judgment by summoning and potentially committing the ambassador to civil jail.

In a replying affidavit sworn on March 2, 2026, the embassy’s head of finance, Khalid M. H. Al-Arishi, argued that an error of law apparent on the face of the record required urgent intervention by the court.

The embassy maintained that the ambassador, as the accredited representative of the Saudi monarch, embodied the sending state and that summoning him for committal to civil jail would effectively subject the monarch to the same process.

It argued that such action would contravene international law and the rules governing diplomatic immunity, warning that the proceedings could trigger an avoidable diplomatic dispute between Kenya and Saudi Arabia.