Case 6015036/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Natena Mengesha Kebede v Moko Jumbi Holdings Limited (Moko Bar Limited) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6015036/2024
- Decision date
- 18 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bartlett Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Natena Mengesha Kebede
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a consent judgment of the Employment Tribunal sitting at Watford via CVP on 10 October 2025 before Employment Judge Bartlett. The claimant, Ms Natena Mengesha Kebede, and the respondent, Moko Jumbi Holdings Limited (Moko Bar Limited), agreed that the claimant's sex discrimination, race discrimination, unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, whistleblowing, and victimisation claims should be dismissed by consent.
The judgment records no findings on the merits of any claim and gives no reasons for liability or dismissal beyond the parties' consent. It also records no monetary award or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Dismissed by consent. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed by consent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed by consent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed by consent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed by consent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed by consent. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.