- Free State deputy director reinstated after flawed dismissal process.
- Court emphasizes procedural fairness over administrative convenience.
- Reinstatement highlights human cost of legal errors in public service.
After almost two years of stress, financial strain, and personal hardship, Lebogang Godfrey Lesiu, a former deputy director in the Free State bursary unit, has finally won justice.
The Cape Town Labour Court ordered his reinstatement, finding that his dismissal was procedurally flawed and violated his constitutional right to fair administrative action. The case demonstrates that in South Africa, even serious allegations cannot override a worker’s right to due process.
The dispute concerned allegations that Lesiu, while heading the bursary unit as a Deputy Director, had abused his position for personal gain. He was accused of taking more than he was entitled to as a part-time bursary holder, claiming and receiving monies he was not properly authorised to receive on three separate occasions in contravention of the Bursary Policy and the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA).
Among the allegations, he allegedly diverted R7 000 of funds earmarked for registration, tuition, and books into a personal “meal pocket,” despite not being entitled to a meal allowance as a part-time bursary holder.
The alleged misconduct constituted four counts of theft, alternatively gross dishonesty, which ultimately led to his dismissal. However, it was determined that the dismissal was substantively unfair, finding that the evidence presented did not establish that Lesiu had committed the alleged offences.
Procedural failures and legal irregularities
The court’s detailed 42-page judgment, authored by Justice Nomonde Mngqibisa, highlighted significant procedural flaws in Lesiu’s dismissal. Central to the case was the improper filing of a confirmatory affidavit by attorney André Botha, which the court deemed an “irregular step”, a legal action outside prescribed rules that undermined fairness.
The case also involved a complex review of the arbitrator’s reasoning. For a review on the grounds of unreasonableness, the court assessed whether the arbitrator had failed to apply the mind, considered irrelevant factors, ignored relevant considerations, or acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.
While mere errors of fact or law are insufficient to overturn an award, the flaws in reasoning and approach may render the result unreasonable or unfair. In Lesiu’s case, the review found that the arbitrator’s conclusions could not reasonably be supported by the reconstructed evidence, giving the application strong prospects of success.
Conviction.co.za
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
