A former executive at Kuda, one of Nigeria’s leading fintech startups, has filed a lawsuit alleging a toxic work culture, gender discrimination, and retaliatory dismissal. Rosemary Hewat, the company’s former group chief people officer, claims in court documents seen by that Kuda’s CEO, Babatunde Ogundeyi, fostered an environment where women were belittled, discriminated against, and sidelined. Her lawsuit also alleges that she was denied stock options under terms promised to her male colleagues and was fired after raising concerns about workplace treatment.
The allegations starkly contrast Kuda’s public image as a champion of gender inclusivity. The Target Global-backed startup has promoted its efforts to recruit and retain female talent, and Hewat, who joined the company in 2021, was a key figure in these initiatives. In March 2023, she announced that Kuda had reached a 1:1 ratio of female-to-male employees. However, her lawsuit describes a work culture where women were routinely undermined and excluded.
Hewat’s lawsuit paints a picture of a hostile work environment under Ogundeyi’s leadership. She alleges he made disparaging remarks about female employees, publicly humiliated two female colleagues during a December 2023 strategy retreat, and described them as “low class” for their lack of exposure to luxury. She further claims that Ogundeyi encouraged a culture of fear, stating that employees “see him as God” and are “afraid to approach him.”
Kuda confirmed Hewat had filed a lawsuit against the company, but declined to comment on the allegations.
“In line with our current policy and out of respect for privacy, we do not comment on matters of this nature involving current or former employees,” the company’s spokesperson wrote in an email to . Hewat also declined requests for comments.
A key point in Hewat’s lawsuit involves her employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs). She claims Kuda failed to honour a contractual agreement to grant her shares at the Series A price, instead offering them at the higher Series B valuation, while a male colleague, Steven Bastian, had his terms adjusted to reflect the more favourable Series A price. According to the lawsuit, Ogundeyi justified this discrepancy by stating that Bastian’s role as Group CFO was “more important” than Hewat’s.
Hewat alleges that she was systematically sidelined after raising concerns about these issues. She was excluded from a key strategy meeting in January 2023 despite her role as the company’s top HR executive. Over time, Pavel Khristolubov, Kuda’s group chief operating officer, allegedly took over aspects of her job while harassing and undermining her. Ogundeyi allegedly dismissed her concerns when she complained, telling her to “spend the next six months getting Khristolubov to like her.”
Her dismissal came soon after she filed a formal grievance about the ESOP issue in December 2023. On February 20, 2024, she was fired while en route to an executive retreat in Nigeria. She alleges that her dismissal was sudden and unjustified and that Kuda attempted to frame it as redundancy without following any selection criteria. Despite this, her role remained within the company, with other employees expected to take over her responsibilities.
Adding to the contradictions, Kuda’s chief technical officer, Mutairu Mustapha, reportedly told her the termination was a “mistake” and urged her to return to work.
Kuda has not publicly responded to the allegations. However, Ogundeyi allegedly cited cost-cutting measures as a reason for Hewat’s dismissal, pointing to the sharp devaluation of the naira in 2024. Hewat disputes this claim, arguing that the company continued discretionary spending, including employing a nanny for Ogundeyi’s children at Kuda’s expense.
Hewat’s lawsuit alleged these events took a toll on her mental and physical health, citing depression, panic attacks, and insomnia. She is seeking financial compensation for lost benefits, emotional distress, and punitive damages for what she describes as egregious misconduct. The exact compensation Hewat is demanding is not specified in court documents.
