Case 2210741/2023 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 2210741/2023
- Decision date
- 14 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov Tribunal
- Panel members
- L Jones, PM Secher
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Sylvia Namaganda’s claim against the Secretary of State for Justice was for direct race discrimination in relation to allegations 1-5. After hearing the case on 4-8 November 2024, the unanimous tribunal found that allegation 5 was not well-founded and dismissed it.
The tribunal held that the complaints tied to allegations 1-4 were not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. Those allegations were therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In the alternative, the tribunal also found allegations 1-4 were not well-founded and dismissed them on the merits.
As a result, the claimant’s entire claim failed and was dismissed. No monetary remedy was awarded or recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The claimant’s direct race discrimination complaints concerned allegations 1-5. Allegation 5 was found not well-founded and dismissed. Allegations 1-4 were found to have been presented out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time; in the alternative, those allegations were also found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.