Case 2300788/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs. M. Mnyama v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis — 2025

Case reference: 2300788/2022
Decision date: 1 October 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Sudra Sitting
Venue: London South
Panel members: Mr. S. Townsend, Mr. A. Fairbank

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs. M. Mnyama

Respondent

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal, sitting at London South Employment Tribunal on 29 and 30 September and 1 October 2025 before Employment Judge Sudra with non-legal members Mr. S. Townsend and Mr. A. Fairbank, heard the Claimant’s complaints against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The appearances recorded were the Claimant represented by her husband, Mr. B. Mnyama, and the Respondent represented by Ms. E. Banton of Counsel.

The unanimous judgment was that the Claimant’s complaint of harassment related to disability was not well founded and was dismissed. The Tribunal also found that the complaint of harassment related to age was not well founded and was dismissed.

No remedy was awarded or quantified in the judgment.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Harassment	The Tribunal found the complaint of harassment related to disability was not well founded and dismissed it.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Harassment	The Tribunal found the complaint of harassment related to age was not well founded and dismissed it.	Dismissed	Age	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.