The Labour Court ruled that the former Chief Information Officer of Victoria & Alfred Waterfront (V&A) must compensate for damages exceeding R2.8 million after it was established that she fraudulently provided false information about her work experience to secure the position.
Judge Robert Lagrange found that Sibongiseni Totsedjane's conduct led to significant financial losses for V&A Waterfront. The court ordered her to pay over R1 million in compensation for fraudulent statements that led to her employment, plus another million for engaging Professor Tiko Iyamu and an additional R464,000 to the IT consultant Nokubele Mchunu.
Furthermore, Totsedjane is required to pay interest on these amounts and cover V&A Waterfront's legal costs on a solicitor-client scale.
False Employment History
Totsedjane began working at V&A Waterfront as CIO in October 2015. During the hiring process, she made several claims regarding her previous employment, which the court deemed false. Specifically, she claimed to have left Engen due to political issues 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 a false claim of a more lucrative offer from CPUT to convince the company to increase her offered annual salary from R700,000 to R850,000. 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 terminate the employment contract and recover damages equivalent to the payment received, as no value was derived from the services rendered.
Private Business Activities
The court's ruling also detailed evidence that Totsedjane engaged in extensive private business activities while employed at V&A Waterfront. Forensic accounting of her corporate laptop revealed activity related to her private business, FlavaLite Innovations, as well as academic and other projects. It was reported to the court that she exploited private business opportunities during working hours and periods when she was on leave or sick.
The court determined that, unlike her private activities, she did not perform the duties expected of her in the CIO role. Evidence presented by V&A Waterfront showed that she missed meetings and deadlines, and failed to 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 provider, EOH MC Solutions, without disclosing these connections to her employer. The court ruled 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 R1.402 million for Iyamu's services and R464,000 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 Proceedings by the Court
The ruling also noted 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 failed to attend the final hearing and did not submit a memorandum.
Judge Lagrange stated that the circumstances justified imposing punitive costs, citing both the seriousness of the primary conduct and Totsedjane's behavior during the litigation.