- Judge Lagrange says honesty and good faith are legal duties that begin before an employment contract is signed.
- The court found a former executive misrepresented her employment history, fabricated salary negotiations and concealed business relationships.
- V&A Waterfront recovered millions in damages after proving it had been induced to employ her through fraud.
Honesty is the foundation of every employment contract, and an employee who secures a job through deliberate deception cannot expect the law to protect the benefits of that fraud.
That is the central message from Judge R Lagrange, who ruled that V&A Waterfront was entitled to recover millions of rand after proving its former Chief Information Officer obtained her appointment through fraudulent misrepresentations and breached the duty of good faith owed to her employer.
The court said the truth would have changed everything
V&A Waterfront sued Sibongiseni Thotsejane after uncovering what the court described as a pattern of deception during her recruitment and employment.
The company alleged that Thotsejane falsely represented why she had left previous employers, concealed that she remained employed by the Cape Peninsula University of Technology, and later submitted a fabricated salary offer to negotiate a higher remuneration package.
Judge Lagrange found those misrepresentations were fundamental to the appointment. The judge wrote, “Had the applicant known the true version of her prior employment history, it would never have employed her.”
The judge concluded that the employment contract was induced by fraud because the company relied on a false version of her professional record.
Honesty and good faith are legal duties
The judgment makes it clear that honesty is not confined to what appears on a CV. Judge Lagrange held that Thotsejane’s concurrent employment, undisclosed private business activities and failure to act in her employer’s interests amounted to a breach of both her written contract and the implied duty of good faith owed by every employee.
He said, “The contract was concluded because of gross duplicity on the respondent’s part”. He added that the law entitled the employer to be restored to the position it would have occupied had it never agreed.
The court found that V&A Waterfront received no meaningful value from the services for which it paid more than R1 million in remuneration, making damages recoverable.
Concealed business interests breached procurement rules
The court also examined Thotsejane’s role in securing the appointment of two information technology consultants who had existing business relationships with her private company.
Evidence showed she promoted their appointments while concealing those relationships from V&A Waterfront. Judge Lagrange found she was “obviously conflicted” in advancing the appointments of people with whom she had private business ties and held that such conduct was incompatible with her duty to act honestly, in good faith and in the company’s best interests.
The judgment concluded that the employer suffered substantial financial losses because the appointments would not have occurred had she complied with her contractual obligations.
The judge also censured her conduct during the trial
The litigation extended over several years and included repeated jurisdictional objections, postponement applications and numerous opportunities for the respondent to participate in the proceedings.
Although the Labour Court granted her a postponement to obtain legal representation, Judge Lagrange said it did so with “profound reservations” after questioning her bona fides. He found that she had been given every reasonable opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, present evidence and defend the claim, but ultimately failed to engage meaningfully with the trial.
When considering costs, the judge said her conduct during the proceedings deserved “severe censure”, finding that the pattern of deception continued beyond the workplace and into the litigation itself.
The order
Judge Lagrange ordered Thotsejane to compensate V&A Waterfront for the financial losses caused by her fraudulent conduct. The court awarded R1,031,237.46 in damages for fraudulently inducing the company to employ her and a further R1,866,005 for losses arising from the fraudulent engagement of two consultants linked to her undisclosed business interests.
She was also ordered to pay interest on the damages at the prescribed rate, together with V&A Waterfront’s attorney-and-client legal costs, including the costs of counsel.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
