A former chief executive of MUA Insurance (Kenya) Limited, Lydia W.W. Kibaara, has threatened to sue the Mauritian-owned group for breach of contract and defamation. The dispute follows a newspaper report that her lawyers state falsely linked her to fraud and alleged she was dismissed from her role.
The conflict is detailed in a legal demand letter sent by the Nairobi law firm Danstan Omari & Associates to the Chairman of the MUA Group Board in Mauritius and the Group Chief Executive Officer of its Kenyan subsidiary. The letter demands corrective action within seven days to avoid a lawsuit.
According to the document, Ms. Kibaara is a professional with 27 years of experience in the insurance industry. She held senior positions at Britam and Jubilee Insurance Limited before becoming the CEO of Saham Assurance Kenya Limited.
After the MUA Group acquired Saham, she was appointed Chief Executive Officer of MUA Kenya and was nominated to the Group Board. The letter describes her career as unblemished,with no record of disciplinary, criminal, or regulatory issues.
Her departure from MUA in 2024 was governed by a Mutual Termination and Separation Agreement. The letter states this agreement was mutually and voluntarily negotiated,resulting in an orderly and amicable separation.
A key component of this agreement was Clause 10, a mutual non-disparagement clause, which bound both parties from making statements that would bring the other into disrepute.
The legal action stems from an article published in the Business Daily on September 23, 2025, titled “Mauritian firm MUA takes Shs. 1.6bn hit in Kenya fraud.” The article, attributed to investor briefings by MUA, claimed that Ms. Kibaara’s tenure was connected to “fraud” and “hidden liabilities” and stated that she was “dismissed” as CEO.
Her legal team refutes these claims forcefully. “These allegations are manifestly false,” the letter states, clarifying that “our client was never dismissed; she left under the negotiated mutual separation agreement.” They further reveal that a PwC forensic audit commissioned by MUA itself exonerated her, concluding: “We did not identify sufficient evidence for us to conclude that there has been intentional concealment or dishonesty by any party.”
The document states that when Ms. Kibaara contacted MUA about the article, the company acknowledged that the statements came from their briefings but claimed the newspaper had “misquoted” or “misinterpreted” them. Her legal team asserts that this is no defence,”and that by failing to promptly correct the public record, MUA is in breach of their separation contract.
The law firm has issued a seven-day ultimatum for MUA to comply with four key demands. These include a formal admission of the breach, the publication of a prominent retraction and unconditional apology, an immediate cessation of all disparaging statements, and entering into good-faith negotiations to determine financial damages for the harm caused.
Failure to meet these demands will result in immediate legal proceedings. The law firm states it will file for breach of contract, seek injunctive relief, and claim aggravated and exemplary damages.
