A UK employment tribunal has dismissed all allegations brought against Nigerian fintech company Kuda by its former Chief People Officer, Rosemary Hewat. The judgment rejects claims of gender discrimination, unfair dismissal, and related grievances that formed part of Hewat’s February 2025 lawsuit. The ruling brings clarity to a high-profile dispute that centered on internal tensions and compensation disagreements during a period of organizational change at the company.
Background of the Legal Challenge
Hewat filed her case over events that occurred between 2023 and 2024, alleging a hostile work environment, public humiliation, and inequitable stock option treatment compared with a male colleague. Her account portrayed systemic issues within Kuda’s leadership and suggested an environment where gender bias affected both decision-making and employee experience. The tribunal assessed these claims in detail, reviewing evidence submitted by both sides.
Scrutiny of Workplace Conduct Claims
One of the central allegations was that senior leadership made derogatory remarks about Hewat’s background during a company retreat. The tribunal found this characterization to be incorrect, concluding that the comments in question were logistical feedback related to accommodation arrangements and did not constitute hostile or discriminatory behavior. This finding undercut the argument that the incident reflected a broader culture of mistreatment.
Another focal point was the claim that Hewat had been instructed to “make him like her” in reference to resolving tension with a colleague. The tribunal determined this was not a gender-targeted or inappropriate directive. Instead, it was part of a general conflict resolution effort applied across the team, positioning the instruction as standard managerial practice rather than evidence of discrimination.
Dissecting the Stock Option Dispute
A major pillar of the complaint involved stock option terms. Hewat asserted that she had been promised a strike price aligned with a male colleague’s Series A valuation, suggesting she was misled and treated less favorably. The tribunal sided with the company, confirming that her official documentation always reflected a Series B strike price. It found no credible evidence that any alternative terms had been agreed upon or promised during negotiations.
The tribunal also evaluated the repricing of a male colleague’s stock options, which Hewat said demonstrated gender-based preferential treatment. Kuda successfully argued that the adjustment was a retention measure for an employee critical to fundraising activities, not a gender-driven decision. The tribunal accepted this explanation, weakening one of the central themes of the discrimination narrative.
Justification for Termination and Confidentiality
Hewat’s unfair dismissal allegation centered on her claim that she was terminated in retaliation for raising issues about her stock option terms. The tribunal rejected this argument, finding that Kuda had eliminated the Chief People Officer role as part of a broader restructuring. The company cited cost-cutting measures and role consolidation, and the tribunal agreed that the decision aligned with legitimate business considerations.
The tribunal also examined the leak of information surrounding Hewat’s departure. After reviewing the available evidence, it concluded that Hewat herself was the most likely source of the leak. This determination further reinforced Kuda’s position and contradicted her assertion that the company acted improperly in managing communication around her exit.
The tribunal’s comprehensive ruling resolves the legal dispute in Kuda’s favor. By dismissing all claims, the decision affirms the legality of the company’s restructuring process and its handling of internal conflicts and compensation matters. While the case drew significant attention, the outcome provides closure for the fintech as it continues its operational and strategic initiatives.
Source: TechPointAfrica