- Court finds no evidence linking ARVs found at nurse’s son’s home to any hospital or clinic stock.
- The arbitrator misapplied theft law by relying on possession without proof of ownership or loss.
- Dismissal overturned, and nurse awarded compensation equal to 12 months’ salary.
When police forced open a locked room inside her son’s home in Bloemfontein, and found 11 boxes of antiretroviral medication, Nontuthuzelo Thokozile Taioe’s career began to unravel from a single discovery made far away from any hospital pharmacy.
Three years later, she was dismissed from her post as a Professional Nurse at the MUCPP Community Health Centre, where she had worked since 2008, and earned R28 502 a month. No clinic ever reported missing stock. No patient was recorded as going without treatment. Yet, Taioe was branded a thief.
Taioe faced two disciplinary charges. She was accused of theft and unlawful possession of government ARVs, and of prejudicing departmental efficiency by depriving patients of medication. She was found guilty only on the first charge, and dismissed on 5 July 2021.
On 2 December 2025, Acting Labour Court Judge L Gura overturned her dismissal in a sharply reasoned judgment. The judge found that the Free State Department of Health never proved that the ARVs belonged to it, were stolen from any facility, or were even under Taioe’s control. The court made clear that the department needed to prove both the source of the medication and that Taioe had broken a workplace rule.
Procedural fairness was not in dispute during the review. The focus was on whether the decision to dismiss was substantively fair, which meant whether there was enough proof that Taioe had broken any workplace rule.
In the judgment, Judge Gura wrote that "the evidence was clear that the medication was not found at the applicant’s house, but at her son’s property", and that "no evidence was adduced of shortages at the First Respondent’s premises".
The search that triggered everything
The story began on 12 June 2018, when members of the South African Police Service arrived at a property in Bloemfontein, and forced entry into a locked room inside house number 21 942. Inside the room were 11 boxes of Odimune ARVs, each containing 69 bottles with 28 tablets per bottle. The property had two houses, number 21 942, where the medicine was found, and number 21 959, where Taioe lived with her husband.
The houses were separated by 20 to 30 metres, with different entrances from separate streets. They shared a fenced perimeter, along with other structures, including a garage and a storeroom. Taioe’s husband’s vehicle was parked at 21 942 on the day of the inspection in loco, but the evidence confirmed that the medication was not found in Taioe’s living quarters, kitchen, or bedroom.
The arbitrator accepted that the medicine was found at her son’s house, and not hers. However, the arbitration process later found her guilty of theft and unlawful possession, relying mainly on the fact that the medication was discovered on property linked to her.
The case against the nurse
The Department of Health argued that because the medication was ARV treatment manufactured by Cipla, it must have originated from the public health system, and therefore belonged to the state. However, the charge did not specify when the drugs were taken, from which pharmacy, or how their absence was discovered. No stock lists were produced, no shortage reports were filed, and no pharmacy manager testified that tablets had gone missing.
Despite the lack of direct evidence, the disciplinary inquiry convicted her on the basis of possession alone. The arbitrator reasoned that unlawful possession could sustain a theft finding, relying on the Labour Appeal Court’s AngloGold Ashanti precedent, even though the medicine was not found in Taioe’s room or under her exclusive control.
The Labour Court rejected this logic. Judge Gura stated that "there was no particular marking that distinguished the medication as belonging to the Respondent and nobody else". The judgment also said, "the evidence presented did not prove that the medication belonged to the Department or that it was stolen from any of its facilities".
Who controlled the room
A central dispute was whether Taioe had control over the room where the medicine had been found. Police testified that when they arrived, no one had a key, and they had to force entry. Taioe’s son allegedly told officers he did not have the key. Her husband testified that she had locked the room, but Taioe said she had asked her son to store bags given to her by her gardener, Johannes, and did not know what was inside.
The arbitrator resolved this conflict by relying on what she accepted as the son’s version, that he had told police the boxes were delivered by his mother’s colleagues. However, the son never testified. No affidavit was filed, and no medical report explained why he could not give evidence, even though the family said he was moderately mentally retarded. The arbitrator could have subpoenaed him, but did not. Instead, she preferred hearsay over sworn testimony from both parents.
Judge Gura found this deeply problematic. The court said, "there was no substantiation of the son’s alleged incapacity, and nothing prevented the arbitrator from calling him as a witness".
A legal shortcut the court refused to take
The arbitrator’s reliance on the AngloGold Ashanti case was misplaced. Judge Gura wrote that "in AngloGold the stolen goods were found inside the employee’s own room at a company residence. In this case, the medication was in a locked room in a third party’s house. The comparison was misplaced".
Without proof that the medicine belonged to the department, unlawful possession could not become theft by assumption. The court said, "the burden does not shift until ownership is established".
The ruling that restored dignity
The court concluded the arbitrator had reached a finding, "which a reasonable decision-maker could not reach", and set aside the award. The dismissal was declared unfair, and Taioe was awarded compensation equal to 12 months’ salary.
The arbitrator also argued that Taioe showed no remorse, and that a breakdown of trust justified dismissal, but the Labour Court found that these conclusions were unsupported by the evidence.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
