Former V&A Waterfront CIO ordered to pay R2.9m in damages in fraud case

The Labour Court has ruled in favour of Victoria and Alfred Waterfront (Pty) LTD in its case against Sibongiseni Thotsejane, its former Chief Information Officer in the Finance & Central Services Department (‘CIO’).

V&A Waterfront approached the court alleging that Thotsejane fraudulently induced it to employ her through misrepresentations about her previous employment history.

It had employed Thotsejane as its Chief Information Officer in the Finance & Central Services Department (‘CIO’) with effect from 12 October 2015. V&A summarily terminated her employment for misconduct on 12 December 2016 following a disciplinary enquiry.

V&A Waterfront submissions

Mr W Lotter, former acting dean of the Business and Management Faculty at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT), Ms Stewart-Roberts, Executive of Strategic Relations and Human Resources for the V&A, and Ms L Hendricks, who worked in human resources and recruitment administration, gave evidence for V&A Waterfront.

Lotter testified that Thotsejane commenced full-time employment at CPUT as a Co-ordinator on 1 August 2014, earning an annual remuneration package of R606 374. He stated that by September 2016, Thotsejane’s absenteeism at CPUT had become so severe that he instructed her to report to him daily in the dean’s office to monitor her attendance, an instruction she failed to comply with.

While still employed at CPUT in June and July 2015, a V&A Waterfront panel interviewed Thotsejane three times. During these interviews, she affirmed and elaborated on the fraudulent misrepresentations in her CV regarding her previous employment.

The misrepresentations included that:

• She left her job at Engen due to “political challenges” and a merger that was underway. However, she had actually been dismissed for gross misconduct, as confirmed in an arbitration award.
• She left Old Mutual because she was headhunted. On investigation, it was found that she was dismissed following a disciplinary inquiry for multiple misconduct charges. These included insubordination, unlawful possession of property, unauthorised absence from work, and breaches of various policies and procedures.
• Thotsejane stated on her CV that she resigned from Acceleration eMarketing for ‘career development’. However, she had been dismissed for incapacity after missing training sessions, staying out of work without a valid reason, missing deadlines, and delivering substandard work. V&A Waterfront confirmed this in an arbitration award.
• Regarding CPUT, she concealed her ongoing employment and never resigned. She continued to receive her CPUT salary there while employed at the V&A Waterfront at least until February 2017.

Investigations

Court papers reveal that an enquiry to Mr P Du Plooy, the Head of IT at Engen, told Stewart-Roberts of Thotsejane’s history of misconduct at the firm. Du Plooy warned Stewart-Roberts that during her employment at Engen, Thotsejane would leave laptops and handbags in her office to create an impression she was at work, when in fact she was not.

Stewart-Roberts testified that Thotsejane repeated an identical pattern of behaviour at V&A. When Thotsejane was suspended, it was discovered that she had four laptops and multiple handbags in the boot of her car.

The ensuing investigation revealed that Thotsejane had lied on her CV regarding her entire employment history. Arbitration awards showed that Acceleration dismissed her in March 2007 for poor work performance, Old Mutual dismissed her in January 2012 for insubordination and unlawful possession of property, and Engen dismissed her in January 2014 for gross misconduct and a conflict of interest involving her private business.

Later, in November 2016, when Thotsejane was confronted about her concurrent employment by CPUT, she produced a letter claiming she had resigned from CPUT on 1 September 2015. This was sent to Lotter for confirmation. He testified that this resignation was false and Thotsejane continued to receive her full monthly salary from CPUT until her actual resignation in February 2017.

Employment

On 27 July 2015, the V&A Waterfront offered Thotsejane the position of CIO at R700 000 per year. On 30 July 2015, Thotsejane submitted a fraudulent counter-offer demanding R1 100 000, based on the false claim that CPUT had offered her a Head of Department position.

Lotter confirmed that a letter dated 31 July 2015, which Thotsejane sent to the V&A Waterfront, claiming that CPUT had offered her a Head of Department position with a R65 000 salary, a housing allowance, vehicle and fuel allowances, worldwide travel, and internet connectivity, was a “complete fabrication”.

However, the fabrication successfully induced the V&A Waterfront to increase its offer to R850 000 per annum. The V&A ultimately concluded her employment contract on 15 October 2015.

However, V&A said in court papers that from 15 to 31 October 2015, Thotsejane failed to attend work for her first two weeks of employment without permission, claiming she had suffered a nervous breakdown and was admitted to a mental health clinic.

Later in her employment, V&A alleges that Thotsejane fraudulently induced it to hire two IT consultants through another entity, EOH MC Solutions (‘EOH’). As a result of her fraudulent conduct, which breached her duties, V&A paid EOH R1 402 005 and R464 000 in remuneration for the two consultants.

V&A further alleges she did not even perform her contractual duties.

Stewart-Roberts testified that Thotsejane’s tenure with V&A was characterised by late arrivals, missed meetings, high absenteeism and the submission of copious doctor’s certificates.

Judgment in favour of V&A Waterfront

Judge Robert Lagrange ordered Thotsejane to pay V&A Waterfront damages of R 1 031 237 for her fraudulent misrepresentations that led it to employ her.

Thotsejane must pay the V&A Waterfront damages of R 1 402 005 and R 464 000 for the damages it suffered arising from the engagement of the consultants.

Thotsejane must pay the V&A interest on the amounts mentioned above.

She must also pay the Applicant’s costs, including counsel fees, on an attorney-own-client scale.