Why the UK Tribunal Dismissed the Discrimination Case Against Kuda
On October 21, the Tribunal rejected allegations of
gender discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination after a full
hearing and detailed examination of the evidence. The case, first reported by
TechCabal in February 2025, had drawn attention because of Kuda’s prominence as
an African fintech operating within a global labour market.
The outcome is notable not just for Kuda but for what
it reveals about how employment disputes are handled under UK law. Most
discrimination and unfair dismissal claims never reach a full tribunal hearing,
often ending in settlement or early conciliation. When a case does proceed to a
hearing, the legal bar is significantly higher.
Why the Claims Failed
UK employment tribunals require claimants to do more
than show that workplace conflict or unfair treatment occurred. They must
demonstrate a clear causal connection between the alleged discriminatory
behaviour and the adverse employment action, such as dismissal or redundancy.
In this case, according to court documents reviewed by
TechCabal, the Tribunal found that Hewat did not meet that threshold on any of
her claims. The burden of proof rested with her to show a sustained pattern of
discriminatory conduct that materially contributed to her dismissal, and the
evidence presented did not support that conclusion.
Babs Ogundeyi, Kuda’s co-founder and CEO, said the ruling confirmed the company’s position from the outset, describing the allegations as untrue and the decision as expected.
Hewat, who served as Kuda’s chief people officer, said
she respected the Tribunal’s decision and the process through which it was
reached. She described employment tribunal proceedings as complex and
adversarial, noting that outcomes are shaped by the evidence and legal
arguments available at the time.
She also said she would not attempt to revisit the
matter publicly, effectively closing a legal battle that had lasted several months.
Had the case succeeded, Hewat could have been awarded
compensation covering lost earnings and benefits, emotional distress, and
potentially punitive damages. Court documents did not specify the amount she
sought.
Scrutiny of Kuda’s Workplace Culture
The allegations stood in contrast to Kuda’s public
stance on gender inclusion. In March 2023, Hewat herself announced that the
company had achieved a one-to-one female-to-male employee ratio.
Ogundeyi said the ruling had not altered Kuda’s
internal benchmarks or its approach to inclusivity. According to him, the
company maintains a roughly even gender split across more than 700 employees
globally, with a Nigerian board made up of four men and three women.
The Tribunal found no evidence that Kuda’s public claims
about inclusivity were undermined by discriminatory practices.
Remarks, Feedback, and Workplace Dynamics
The court also examined claims that senior executives
made derogatory comments about Hewat, including alleged remarks about her being
“low class” or lacking quality or luxury. The Tribunal rejected these
allegations, concluding that the comments cited were narrowly linked to
logistical discussions about accommodation for a corporate event and were
neither hostile nor discriminatory.
On broader issues of workplace relationships, the
Tribunal dismissed claims of targeted mistreatment. It found that comments
about improving colleague dynamics formed part of a general conflict-resolution
approach applied to multiple employees and that the relationship at the centre
of the complaint later improved.
Ogundeyi said the findings underscored the importance
of honest feedback within organisations, arguing that structured performance
reviews and regular check-ins are essential for growth rather than evidence of
hostility.
Read More: Canal+ to Distribute MultiChoice’s African Content Globally Through StudioCanal
Several other claims were also rejected. On equity
compensation, the Tribunal ruled that Hewat had not been promised a Series A
stock option strike price and that her signed documents correctly reflected a
Series B valuation. It also found that the repricing of a male colleague’s
options was linked to his role in fundraising, not his gender.
The Tribunal further concluded that an email cited as
evidence of a formal grievance did not meet that standard and instead amounted
to a conditional threat to pursue a discrimination claim if certain demands
were not met. It also found that the most likely source of leaked information
about Hewat’s departure was Hewat herself.
Redundancy Upheld
Crucially, the Tribunal upheld Kuda’s decision to make
Hewat redundant. It accepted the company’s argument that the chief people
officer role was eliminated as part of a genuine, cost-driven organisational
restructuring and was not replaced.
That finding reinforced the Tribunal’s view that the
dismissal was not discriminatory or retaliatory in nature.
What the Case Signals
For Kuda, the ruling closes a sensitive chapter and
offers legal validation of its internal processes. For other startups operating
across borders, the case highlights how demanding the evidentiary standards are
for discrimination claims in the UK and how closely tribunals scrutinise
documentation, decision-making, and consistency.
Ogundeyi said the experience reinforced the importance
of sincerity and fairness in leadership, noting that while not every decision
will be perfect, organisations grounded in integrity can stand by their
actions.
In the end, the case did
more than resolve a dispute. It illustrated how values, policies, and internal
practices are tested when they meet the realities of a strict legal system and how few claims survive that test without compelling, well-documented evidence.
