A Ononiwu and T Chenmbri

Case Summary

The claimant brought two claims against named individuals, but the tribunal struck out both claims as it had no jurisdiction to hear them. The claims lacked coherent narratives making it impossible to identify actionable claims, and evidence suggested any alleged conduct fell outside the relevant time limits.

The tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claims because the claimant's claim narratives were incoherent and incomprehensible, making it impossible to ascertain any actionable claim, and evidence suggested any alleged conduct occurred significantly outside the statutory time limits for bringing such claims.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Whether tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims
• •Clarity and coherence of claim narratives
• •Proper identification of respondents
• •Time limits for bringing claims

Case Numbers: 6016337/2025 6023609/2025 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondents Onyinye Ndukwe v 1. Adaora Ononiwu 2. Tinashe Chenmbri PRELIMINARY HEARING Heard at: Watford (by CVP) On: 25 March 2026 Before: Employment Judge Wyeth Appearances For the Claimant: No attendance For the Respondents: No attendance For the University of Reading: Miss H Abery (Trainee Solicitor) JUDGMENT 1. The claimant’s claims (claim numbers 6016337/2025 against the first respondent and 6023609/2025 against the second respondent) are struck out and dismissed in their entirety as the tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear any such complaints. REASONS 1. On 6 May 2025, the claimant submitted a claim form to the tribunal which was allocated the claim number 6016337/2025. In the claim form she named the first respondent as the individual against whom she wished to pursue a claim. The address she provided for the first respondent was the University of Reading, Reading, England RG6 6AH. At section 8.1 of the claim form the claimant ticked the boxes indicating that she intended to pursue a claim for race and/or religion or belief discrimination. She also Case Numbers: 6016337/2025 6023609/2025 2 indicated that she was making another type of claim and gave the following narrative: “Actions that had been discriminately acted continued to affect. Gross discrimination and racial” (sic). Need it be said, that narrative is incomprehensible. In box 8.2 the claimant states the following: “She did something wrong in Reading town apologised that she tried to set me up later unecessarily escalated and still bully me on top. Even after evidencing events that occured despite that I did not hold grudges on her proceed with hate speech“ (sic). Again that text is incoheren…