- The Financial Services Tribunal has overturned Clientèle Life’s decision to debar former sales representative Thandeka Aphane.
- The Tribunal found that shortcomings in the sales process did not prove Aphane lacked honesty and integrity.
- The ruling means Aphane can now return to the financial services industry after her debarment was set aside.
Thandeka Aphane, a former sales representative at Clientèle Life Assurance Company Ltd, has successfully challenged her debarment. The Financial Services Tribunal found that the insurer had not proved she acted dishonestly when selling a funeral policy over the phone.
The Tribunal, made up of Judge LTC Harms and Advocate KD Magano, ruled that although Aphane did not fully follow Clientèle’s prescribed sales process, the evidence did not show she lacked the honesty and integrity required under the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act (FAIS Act). The Tribunal therefore set aside the company’s decision to debar her.
Sales call led to dismissal and debarment
The dispute arose from a phone call Aphane made to a prospective client on 20 March 2026 while she was working as a sales representative for Clientèle Life. Her job involved marketing and selling the company’s insurance products over the phone.
Clientèle claimed that Aphane did not follow its prescribed sales process and created the impression that she was calling about the client’s loan application instead of selling a funeral insurance policy.
The company also accused her of departing from the approved sales script, failing to explain the Funeral Dignity Plan clearly, not properly disclosing the monthly premium, and getting consent for a debit order before making sure the client understood the transaction.
The insurer also said Aphane rushed important disclosures, did not explain the DebiCheck process properly, and presented the policy in a way that misled the client into thinking the call was about credit instead of funeral cover.
After disciplinary proceedings, Clientèle found Aphane guilty of misconduct, dismissed her, and debarred her, saying she no longer met the fit and proper requirements for honesty and integrity under the FAIS Act.
Aphane said company ignored the full context
Aphane denied acting dishonestly. She argued that Clientèle had only considered selected parts of the conversation and ignored the campaign under which the call took place.
She told the Tribunal that the call was part of the company’s approved Phone Finder, Credit and Loan campaign. This campaign required sales representatives to tell potential clients that they had recently applied for credit online and had asked Clientèle to contact them.
Aphane said her references to a credit application were in line with that campaign and were never meant to suggest she was processing or approving a loan.
She also disputed Clientèle’s criticism of her repeated references to a “cash payout”, pointing out that this same wording appeared throughout the company’s own approved sales script. Aphane argued that Clientèle had wrongly treated her alleged failure to follow internal procedures as proof she lacked honesty and integrity.
Tribunal distinguishes poor compliance from dishonesty
When looking at the case, the Tribunal said the real question was not whether Aphane had followed every part of Clientèle’s internal sales process, but whether the evidence showed she had acted dishonestly and no longer met the statutory fit and proper requirements.
The panel stressed that the honesty and integrity requirements under the FAIS Act relate to a representative’s personal character. Not every breach of internal procedures or instance of poor performance is enough to justify debarment.
The Tribunal found that the documentary record showed Aphane repeatedly told the client that Clientèle was not affiliated with any credit company.
She referred to the Clientèle Funeral Dignity Plan during the call, explained that the cash benefit related to a successful death claim, and later clarified that she was helping the client with a funeral policy, not a loan. The Tribunal also noted that she read out the prescribed terms and conditions and repeated them when the client asked.
While Clientèle said these disclosures were rushed or unclear, the tribunal noted that the audio recording of the sales call had not been provided, so it was impossible to independently assess how the conversation took place.
The Tribunal stated, “We cannot assume dishonesty just because there were shortcomings in how the sales call was handled.”
The Tribunal said the evidence supported criticism of the quality of Aphane’s communication, but did not show that she deliberately intended to mislead the client.
The panel also noted that Clientèle’s own approved sales script often referred to “cash”, “cash pay-out”, and “cash benefit” when describing the Funeral Dignity Plan. This weakened the company’s argument that Aphane’s use of those words showed dishonesty.
The panel concluded that this criticism “does not justify the belief that the applicant acted dishonestly or that her conduct was serious enough to question her honesty and integrity.”
The tribunal reached the same conclusion about Aphane’s explanation of the DebiCheck mandate, finding that any shortcomings showed issues with communication rather than an intentional attempt to deceive the client.
Debarment overturned
Summing up, the Tribunal found that the evidence showed “no more than shortcomings in the way the applicant communicated with the client and followed the company’s sales process”. The Tribunal added that these shortcomings were not serious enough to call Aphane’s honesty and integrity into question.
Since Clientèle failed to meet the requirements for debarment under Section 14 of the FAIS Act, the Tribunal upheld Aphane’s application for reconsideration and set aside the company’s decision to debar her. This clears the way for her to return to work as a financial services representative.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
