The labour court ruled that the former Chief Information Officer of Victoria & Alfred Waterfront (V&A) must compensate for damages exceeding 2.8 million rand after it was established that she fraudulently provided false information about her work experience to secure the position.
Judge Robert Lagrange determined that Sibongiseni Totsedjane's conduct led to significant financial losses for V&A Waterfront. The court ordered her to pay over 1 million rand as compensation for fraudulent claims that led to her employment, plus another million rand for the services of Professor Tiko Iyamu and an additional 464,000 rand to IT consultant Nokubele Mchunu.
Furthermore, Totsedjane is required to pay interest on the specified amounts and cover V&A Waterfront's legal costs on a solicitor-client basis.
False Employment History
Totsedjane began working at V&A Waterfront as CIO in October 2015. During the hiring process, she made several statements regarding her previous employment, which the court deemed false. Specifically, she claimed to have left Engen due to political difficulties and a merger, but evidence showed she was dismissed for gross misconduct.
She also stated that she had been engaged by Old Mutual, although in reality, she was dismissed following a disciplinary hearing. Her departure from Acceleration eMarketing was presented as a career development decision, whereas evidence indicated termination due to inability to perform duties. Moreover, she failed to disclose that she continued to work at Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT).
The court found that these misrepresentations were material to V&A Waterfront's decision to hire her. Additionally, it was established that she used the false claim of a more lucrative offer from CPUT to persuade the company to increase her offered annual salary from 700,000 to 850,000 rand. Judge Lagrange concluded that if V&A Waterfront had known the truth about Totsedjane's employment history, they would not have hired her. Therefore, the court ruled that the company was entitled to void the employment contract and claim damages equivalent to the salary she received, as the services provided no value to the company.
Private Business Activities
The ruling also contains details that Totsedjane conducted extensive private sector activities while employed at V&A Waterfront. Information obtained from a forensic accounting examination of her work laptop was presented to the court, revealing activity related to her private business, FlavaLite Innovations, as well as academic and other projects. It was reported that she exploited private business opportunities during working hours and periods when she was on leave or sick.
The court found that, unlike her private activities, she did not perform the work expected of her in the CIO role. Evidence presented by V&A Waterfront showed that she missed meetings, failed to meet deadlines, and did not complete assigned IT tasks.
Consultants Related to Her Private Business
The second part of the lawsuit concerned two IT consultants—Iyamu and Mchunu. The court discovered that both had business ties to Totsedjane and her private company. As CIO, she promoted their appointment through V&A Waterfront's outsourced IT service provider, EOH MC Solutions, without disclosing these connections to her employer. The ruling established that this created a conflict of interest and violated her contractual and procurement obligations, which required honesty, integrity, professionalism, and arm's-length dealings. Ultimately, V&A Waterfront paid 1.402 million rand for Iyamu's services and 464,000 rand for Mchunu's services, excluding VAT. The court ruled that the company suffered financial damage as a result of the fraudulently induced contracts.
Criticism of Conduct During Court Proceedings
The judgment also notes numerous procedural delays and Totsedjane's irregular participation in the legal proceedings. Initially, she had legal representation but later represented herself. She raised a jurisdictional objection, which was dismissed in March 2023 and was not appealed. Subsequently, the Labour Court granted her a postponement in 2024 to obtain legal assistance, but she failed to secure representation and did not appear for the resumed hearings. The court subsequently gave her another opportunity to participate and present arguments, but she did not attend the final session nor submit a memorandum.
Judge Lagrange stated that the circumstances justified imposing punitive costs, citing both the seriousness of the primary conduct and Totsedjane's behaviour during the litigation.