Former V&A Waterfront employee ordered to repay over R2.8 million after misrepresenting employment history - IOL

Former V&A Waterfront chief information officer Sibongiseni Thotsejane to pay over R2.8 million in damages.

The Labour Court has ordered former Victoria & Alfred Waterfront (V&A) chief information officer to pay more than R2.8 million in damages after finding that she fraudulently misrepresented her employment history to secure the position.

Judge Robert Lagrange found that Sibongiseni Thotsejane’s conduct had caused the V&A Waterfront substantial financial losses.

The court ordered her to pay over R1 million in damages relating to the fraudulent representations that led to her employment, as well as another million for the engagement of Professor Tiko Iyamu and a further R464,000 for IT consultant Nokubela Mchunu.

The court also ordered Thotsejane to pay interest on the amounts and the V&A Waterfront’s legal costs on an attorney-and-client scale.

Thotsejane was employed as the V&A Waterfront’s CIO in October 2015. During the recruitment process, she made several representations about her previous employment that the court found to be false.

The judgment records that she claimed she had left Engen because of political challenges and a merger, however, evidence showed that she had been dismissed for gross misconduct. She also claimed to have been headhunted by Old Mutual, although she had been dismissed following disciplinary proceedings. Her departure from Acceleration eMarketing was similarly presented as a career-development decision, while evidence showed she had been dismissed for incapacity.

She also failed to disclose that she remained employed by the Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT).

The court found that the misrepresentations were material to the V&A Waterfront’s decision to employ her. It further found that she had used a false claim about a better offer from CPUT to persuade the company to increase her proposed remuneration from R700,000 to R850,000 a year.

Judge Lagrange concluded that, had the V&A Waterfront known the truth about Thotsejane’s employment history, it would not have employed her. The court held that the company was therefore entitled to cancel the employment contract and recover damages equivalent to the remuneration she had received because it had obtained no value from the services rendered.

The judgment also details evidence that Thotsejane conducted extensive private business activities while employed by the V&A Waterfront.

A forensic examination of her company laptop revealed activities linked to her private business, FlavaLite Innovations, as well as academic and other projects. The court was told that she had pursued private business opportunities during working hours and periods when she was recorded as being on leave or sick leave.

The court found that, in contrast to her private activities, she had failed to deliver the work expected of her as CIO. Evidence presented by the V&A Waterfront was that she missed meetings and deadlines and did not complete the IT-related tasks assigned to her.

A second component of the claim concerned two IT consultants, Iyamu and Mchunu.

The court found that both had business connections with Thotsejane and her private company. While working as CIO, she promoted their appointment through the V&A Waterfront’s outsourced IT provider, EOH MC Solutions, without disclosing those connections to her employer.

The judgment found that this created a conflict of interest and breached her contractual and procurement obligations, which required honesty, integrity, professionalism and arm’s-length transactions.

The V&A Waterfront ultimately paid R1.402 million for Iyamu’s services and R464,000 for Mchunu’s services, excluding VAT. The court held that the company had suffered financial damages as a result of the fraudulently induced engagements.

The judgment also records extensive procedural delays and Thotsejane’s failure to participate consistently in the trial.

She initially had legal representation but later represented herself. She raised a jurisdictional objection, which was dismissed in March 2023 and was not appealed. The Labour Court subsequently granted her a postponement in 2024 to obtain legal representation, but she did not secure representation and did not attend the resumed trial proceedings.

The court later gave her another opportunity to participate and present arguments, but she did not attend the final hearing or file heads of argument.

Judge Lagrange said the circumstances warranted a punitive costs order, citing the seriousness of the underlying conduct as well as Thotsejane’s conduct during the litigation.