Editor’s Note: In this morning’s newsletter, we referenced a news article detailing an ongoing legal case between M-KOPA and a former employee which contained some inaccuracies. This web edition of the newsletter has been updated on July 22, 2025, to include M-KOPA’s comments regarding the case as well as what we’ve learned in our own investigation.
A former M-KOPA Kenya manager, Elizabeth Njoki, has sued the company, alleging its 2019 equity restructuring sidelined African employees while protecting white expatriates and foreign investors.
The suit claims Kenyan staff were assigned to a weaker share class (“Minor Holders”) while a powerful new class (“Growth Shares”)—with better rights and exit terms—was mostly reserved for expatriates. Out of 48 recipients, only seven were African; none were Kenyan in a later round.
In a detailed statement to TechCabal, M-KOPA called the claims “baseless” and said Growth Shares were introduced after the original ESOP was exhausted in 2018. Both plans, the company says, were board-approved and designed by external consultants to reward and retain talent. Share allocations, it insists, were based on role and seniority, not race, and were overseen by a board HR committee chaired by an independent Kenyan director.
State of play: The case comes at a tense moment: as African startups face funding crunches, tough questions about who benefits during down rounds, recapitalisations, and secondary sales are gaining urgency.
The lawsuit is especially sensitive given the profile of investors, including Generation Investment Management (GIM), and British International Investment (BII)—a UK government-owned DFI—who publicly promote inclusive development. M-KOPA maintains that allocations were based on seniority, not race. The petition claims the investors were shielded from dilution while local employees lost out.
The big picture: M-KOPA maintains the restructuring followed standard startup governance. The company is pushing for dismissal, arguing the matter belongs in UK courts. If the case proceeds in Kenya, it could set a precedent for how local courts view the responsibilities of global investors and holding companies operating in the Kenyan market.