The former Chief Executive Officer of MUA Insurance (Kenya) Limited, Lydia W.W. Kibaara, has warned she will take legal action against the Mauritian-owned insurer, accusing it of breach of contract and defamation. The warning follows a media report that linked her to fraud and claimed she was dismissed from office — assertions her legal team insists are baseless and harmful.
The unfolding dispute highlights tensions around corporate accountability, executive contracts, and reputational damage in Kenya’s insurance sector.
Demand Letter to MUA Group
In a demand notice delivered by Danstan Omari & Associates Advocates, Ms. Kibaara accuses the MUA Group of allowing damaging statements to be made about her.
The letter, addressed to the Chairman of MUA Group in Mauritius and the Group CEO of the Kenyan unit, sets out four key demands:
-
Acknowledgement of breach of contract.
-
A formal retraction of defamatory claims.
-
An unconditional public apology.
-
Engagement in financial settlement talks.
The law firm has given the company seven days to act, failing which it will proceed to court.
Disputed Business Daily Article
The controversy stems from an article published on September 23, 2025, by Business Daily, headlined: “Mauritian firm MUA takes Shs. 1.6bn hit in Kenya fraud.”
The report suggested that:
-
Ms. Kibaara’s leadership was tied to fraudulent practices and “hidden liabilities.”
-
She had been dismissed from her role as CEO.
Her lawyers argue these claims are entirely false, stressing that she left MUA under a negotiated mutual separation deal and has no links to fraud.
The Separation Agreement
According to her legal team, Ms. Kibaara’s departure in 2024 was governed by a Mutual Termination and Separation Agreement.
-
This agreement included a mutual non-disparagement clause, binding both sides to avoid making statements that could tarnish the other’s reputation.
-
Her lawyers maintain that MUA has violated this agreement by linking her to fraud in its investor briefings and public communications.
PwC Forensic Audit Findings
Ms. Kibaara’s defence has also pointed to a PwC forensic audit commissioned by MUA, which investigated the company’s financial position.
The audit, according to her legal team, clearly stated:
“We did not identify sufficient evidence for us to conclude that there has been intentional concealment or dishonesty by any party.”
This report, they argue, clears Ms. Kibaara of any wrongdoing and undermines MUA’s alleged justification for tying her to fraud.
Her Professional Record
The demand letter also highlights Ms. Kibaara’s distinguished career in the insurance industry:
-
Over 27 years of experience.
-
Senior roles at Britam and Jubilee Insurance Limited.
-
Former CEO of Saham Assurance Kenya, later rebranded as MUA Insurance Kenya after acquisition.
-
A seat on the MUA Group Board after the takeover.
Her lawyers stress that she has never faced disciplinary, regulatory, or criminal action during her career, and the allegations unfairly undermine her professional reputation.
Potential Legal Consequences
If MUA fails to comply within the seven-day deadline, her lawyers have threatened to initiate:
-
A lawsuit for breach of contract.
-
Defamation proceedings seeking damages.
-
Applications for injunctive relief to stop further reputational damage.
-
Claims for exemplary and aggravated damages.
Broader Industry Implications
The case could have ripple effects across Kenya’s financial services sector. It raises important questions about:
-
How separation agreements are enforced.
-
The responsibilities of multinational insurers in their public disclosures.
-
The role of media reporting in shaping reputations.
It also reflects the growing sensitivity around corporate governance in Kenya’s insurance industry, particularly when fraud and financial losses are involved.
Conclusion
The standoff between Lydia Kibaara and MUA Insurance Kenya is more than just a personal legal battle. It is shaping up as a test case for how multinational companies handle executive exits, non-disparagement agreements, and reputational risks in Kenya.
Whether the insurer retracts its statements or fights the matter in court, the outcome could set an important precedent in Kenya’s corporate and insurance landscapes.