IN THE ELRC ARBITRATION
BETWEEN: ELRC720-25-26GP

LUCAS MAKGATO “the Applicant”
and

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION – GAUTENG “the Respondent”

ARBITRATION AWARD

Case Number: ELRC720-25/26GP

Date of award: 09 April 2026
Gcina Mafani
ELRC Arbitrator

Education Labour Relations Council
ELRC Building
261 West Avenue
Centurion
Tel: 012 663 0452
Fax: 012 643 1601
E-mail: gen.sec@elrc.co.za
Website: www.elrc.org.za

1. DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

1.1. The arbitration was scheduled for the 17th of November 2023 and proceeded as such. Both parties were present, the applicant was represented by Advocate Mogale Mphahlele, and the Respondent was represented by Nombeko Manda the Employee of the Respondent. The Respondent requested a postponement due to illness of the responsible person. Postponement granted . The case proceeded on the 15th, 16th, and 19th of January 2026, then again on the 17th and 18th of February 2026 and finally on the 13th of March 2026 The Respondent’s representative being Ms. Thato Morewane the employee of the Respondent.

1.2. The parties agreed to a face-to-face hearing to mitigate against postponements due to network and load shedding issues .

1.3. The parties were given an opportunity to make their submissions on legal representation, but both parties agreed to have legal representation.

1.4. Both parties were given an opportunity to address me on the application. An ex-tempore ruling was issued postponing the matter. Legal representation was granted, and the arbitration proceeded with the applicant represented by Mr. Mogale Mphahlele.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1. The Applicant was employed by the Respondent (The Gauteng Department of Education) as a Principal of Itirileng School for the Severely Disabled School for the past 8 years before termination. He was given notice to attend a disciplinary hearing at which he faced seven counts of misconduct and financial misconduct. He was found guilty and dismissed from his employment with the Department.
2.2. Dissatisfied with her dismissal, the Applicant referred a dispute to the ELRC for unfair dismissal.
2.3. The arbitration is in respect of a referral by the Applicant of an alleged unfair dismissal for misconduct as provided for in section 191(5)(a)(i) of the Labor Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA.)
2.4. I am now required to decide whether the dismissal of the applicant was unfair substantively and procedurally and then to make an order accordingly.

3. RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS

Mr. Thozamile Horace Sigwili
The Physical Resources Planner

3.1. The Respondent called its first witness Mr. Thozamile Horace Sigwili the Physical Resources Planner in Gauteng West District
3.2. The witness testified and described his duties that, he is responsible for the Identification of amenities at schools (New Buildings to be constructed) as well as additional amenities. In an event where the school has to build (He advises the schools on the processes to be undertaken including drawing of the plans, submission for assessment and approval by Local Municipality and Department Architect. Also updating the Department’s register on new amenities at the schools, initiation of new supplies and the supply of furniture at the schools where amenities were built.
3.3. He testified that he has been in the employ of the Respondent since 1996. He confirmed that he knew the Applicant as the Principal of Itirileng. Before the investigation and subsequently the Disciplinary Hearing he did not know the Applicant.
3.4. He read Charge 1 into record: it is alleged that during the Year 2023, at or near Itirileng School for the SID, you unjustifiably prejudiced the Administration, discipline, or efficiency of the Department of Basic of Education, in that you allowed an Entity called Xakaza Building Construction to build PID play Classrooms for Profound learners at the school without involving the District Planner and the building plan was not approved by the Municipality. The Applicant was therefore charged for Misconduct in terms of Section 18 (1) (f) of the Employment of Educators Act 1998 (as amended).
3.5. He testified that as the DPP he was not aware of the building and Construction that was happening at the school. He only became aware when the investigation was under way.
3.6. He described the process as: firstly, the school has to appoint a qualified architect to draw the building plans, whether the amenity is new or an addition. The Principal has the responsibility to take the Plan to the Department office of the Chief Architect for approval.
3.7. When the plan gets approved, the Chief Architect will issue a letter of approval indicating that the building plan meets the norms and standards of a school structure. The plan is returned to the PRP who will advise the Principal to fetch the plan. It is then that the Physical Resources Planner is satisfied that the plan meets the requirements and the By Laws.
3.8. The Chief Architect and the Local Municipality (Town Planning Engineers put their stamp of approval, and only then can the construction commence. He confirmed that page 4 of R1 is the plan that indicates what needs to happen in the event that some monies have been deposited at the school. He stated that it is from this plan that the monies allocated to the school will be infused.
3.9. He testified that page 6 of R1 shows the signatories which is the Principal, the chairperson of the SGB, the IDSO, the Circuit Manager and the District Director. The signatories will recommend to the Director ISS, Dr Costa that they have satisfied themselves that all is in order. Once the Business Plan has been approved by the Director ISS the process can then commence. Nothing should be done until a signed approval has been handed to the school.
3.10. He confirmed that the Itireleng Document was not signed by the Director ISS and he stated that anything done without the Director’s approval is illegal.
3.11. The school had to draft the advert of the project; it gets shared with the parents to make the community aware of the project. The project management team is set up to see to it that the project gets started and that it gets finished.
3.12. The project Management team must do the shortlisting of service providers that meet the minimum requirements. Attendance registers are a requirement for all these meetings. Once the interviews have been conducted, a letter of appointment is issued to the recommended service provider.
3.13. When the service provider accepts the mandate, a briefing session is held.
3.14. The Service Provider meets with the Project Management Team, and the progress of the building is assessed at every critical stage. When the service provider is finished with its work, they have to issue out a certificate of compliance for electricity, roofing etc. The Principal takes all those documents to the Municipal office for the Municipality to issue a certificate of occupation.
3.15. He reiterated that the Building Plan on page 14 of R1 has no stamp of approval from the Municipality.
3.16. The Plan submitted by the Applicant is a one-page document, the plan is supposed to have 4 pages showing ground floor, elevations, North, Southeast, and West. It is supposed to be a site development plan, showing where new additions will be.
3.17. The Applicant’s plan does not even indicate the name of the Architect who drew the plan and their registration number.
3.18. The Applicant submitted an affidavit; it does not speak to the building and construction which speaks of the removal of the palisade fence in order to build a guard.
3.19. He testified that he was not consulted regarding the construction of the school building, the PID classroom and if the process had been followed, he would have known and would have assisted the Principal.
3.20. He testified that the business plan of the school is missing the Director’s signature, and all the people mentioned above should have signed.
3.21. He testified that the affidavit submitted by the Applicant speaks to the removal of the palisade fence in order to build the guardroom. It is not addressing the matter at hand.
3.22. The plan does not have the approval stamps, he stated that if he had received these documents, he would have taken them to the Chief Architect for advice and then liaised with the Principal.
3.23. Under cross examination he stated that Dr Costa the Director ISS should have signed the Business Plan if she agreed. She does not agree by email, she agrees by putting her signature. The email reads that she agrees with the activities and that he must send the Plan enroute, meaning he must follow the process.
3.24. The Applicant submitted and put to the witness that the Principal before him never followed the process attested to by this witness, but they were never charged.
3.25. He stated under cross examination that there was a memorandum that was sent to all the schools and District Directors, that memo has guidelines on what needs to be done when such is embarked on.
3.26. He conceded that he did not know if the applicant was trained but insisted that the Applicant should have known and if he did not know he should have made it his business to ask for assistance so that the processes can be explained to him, he is the accounting Officer and therefore answerable.
3.27. He conceded that the wall may have been moved and stated that even their processes were not followed because approvals must be obtained before such movement is conducted.

4. RESPONDENT’S SECOND WITNESS

ENOCK KWENA KGABI (DEPUTY CHIEF EDUCATION SPECIALIST)

4.1. He testified under oath and stated that he is the DCES Specialist since 2023 based in Johannesburg.
4.2. He described his responsibilities at length and confirmed that he was the investigator in this case. He met the Applicant Mr Makgato when he visited the school in June 2023.
4.3. Upon arrival at the school, he explained to the Applicant that the Department had received an anonymous complaint relating to the building / construction project. The Department had been informed that there was financial mismanagement at the school.
4.4. The Principal confirmed that there was construction that had just happened at the school. He was informed by the Principal that one project was conducted by the Department of infrastructure and the other project was a school project. The Department had built a guardroom.
4.5. The school was allocated an unplanned maintenance budget with an intention to build a PID play classroom and a transport for learners was to be included in that budget. The school was allocated R928 132.00.
4.6. The Principal was advised that there was a complaint lodged anonymously. He advised him that he was there to establish if there was construction.
4.7. He went back to the school with Mr Craig Meyers and Mr. T. Sigwili the District Physical Planner and Mr. Moss Maleka the Deputy Director Finance.
4.8. On that day they took the Applicant through the allegations as per the complaint. He was informed that he had not followed the processes and the finances were not handled properly. He was asked to describe the process he had followed in obtaining the service providers.
4.9. The Applicant cooperated and gave them all the information that they required.
4.10. He testified that on page 25 of R1 is the quotation from Xakaza Construction for the building of the classroom R100 000.
4.11. Page 26 of R1 is a quotation for R200 000, and the total paid to Xakaza is R300 000
4.12. There was another quotation for R389 890.45 for Creative External Trading.
4.13. Page 28 & 29 of R1 another quotation for R400 933.76 for Crazy T’s Designs.
4.14. He testified that the Company that was recommended was Xakaza for construction of the Classroom to an amount of R300 000.00. Upon perusal of the documents there were 5 requisitions with payments amounting to R500 000.00
4.15. He testified that at page 36 of R1 the requisition dated 5th April 2023 has no invoice, page 34 requisition for an amount of R100 000 no invoice, Page 36 of R1 requisition for R100 000 had no attachment. Page 38 requisition for R100 000 again this payment had no attachment.
4.16. The lowest quotation was R300 000 by Xakaza, but the Principal paid R200 000 to Xakaza without supporting documents.
4.17. On the 7th of August 2023 they had another meeting with the Principal, and he gave them more documents as requested. The Principal provided one set of minutes approving Xakaza, there appears to be no meeting approving further. The SGB also confirmed that only R300 000 was approved for Xakaza Construction of a classroom. No one was able to explain why Xakaza was paid more than what was approved.
4.18. He testified that the Applicant knew that all payments must be accompanied by supporting documents.
4.19. He demonstrated through documents in the bundle that some of the payments were not signed off by the SGB Chairperson. The Principals explanation was that sometimes the Chairperson was not available to sign the documents.
4.20. Testifying on the 3rd allegation he stated that the Principal conceded that the Department had built the Guardroom and the minutes on page 43 of R1 confirm that, however page 44 of R1 is a requisition by the Principal for payment to Xakaza for an amount of R50 000 which states Gate and Guardroom building as well as page 46 requisition for a further R50 000 paid to Xakaza for gate and Guardroom building and Finishing. These payments were made to Xakaza knowing well that the Guardroom was built by the Department.
4.21. He testified that the requisition form was dated 28th March, but the invoice is dated 29th March 2023, how is it possible that a requisition can be done without the invoice.
4.22. He testified with reference to the affidavit R3 and stated that, he is seeing this document for the first time, it was never presented at the internal hearing nor was it presented during the investigation.
4.23. Testifying on allegation 4, he stated that an amount of R352 457 was paid to Plumbing and Welding Pty Ltd. On the documents presented this company had conducted two services Pg. 62 of R1 dated 26 April 2023 R88 900 and pg. 65 invoice dated 21 April 2023 for R29 100. How do you explain an invoice of R29 100 but the requisition and payment of R88 900.00
4.24. Pg. 63 requisition for R88 999 no supporting documents. Two payments were made to Plumbing and Welding on the 2nd of May 2023.
4.25. Another requisition dated 4th of May 23 to Plumbing and Welding for payment of R88 900 and no supporting documents.
4.26. Pg. 65 is an invoice from the same company for R29 100, pg. 66 R1 is a requisition for Plumbing and Welding for R85 658.00 signed and dated 04 May 23. This therefore means double payment in two days on the 2nd and 4th May 23.
4.27. He testified that the Principal is experienced, and he knew that with every payment there must be supporting documents, however he continued to make payments without supporting documents.
4.28. Testifying on allegation 5 he stated that pg. 77 requisition form dated 22 Feb 23, item is petty cash for R5000, PG 78 is a tax invoice for R1520, this was attached to the requisition, he submitted that the tax invoice and the requisition do not speak to each other. An amount of R3480 is unaccounted for.
4.29. Testifying on allegation 6, the witness stated that the Principal contravened Circular 2 of 2021 @ 6.1 which states that the card payments are limited to R3000 anything more than that must be done through eft.
4.30. The Principal made over 9 payments to the total value of R 93 343.62 and one of which has no attachment.
4.31. On allegation 7, he testified that when he went through the payments made towards the transportation claims he discovered that none of them had attachments, in certain instances there was an invitation attached and it was said to be an attachment proving that that individual had attended the meeting, yet the invitation does not prove anything. One payment for an amount of R3000 paid to Mr Ngidi who is said to be attending a training workshop which was held online. Mr Dire made a requisition for R500 on page 113, yet he was paid R2500
4.32. He testified that the Principal as an accounting officer has a responsibility in terms of the South African Schools Act, no 84 of 1996 (Section 16 (2) (f)) to guide the SGB what they can claim for and how, He has a responsibility to prevent any maladministration, mismanagement by any staff.
4.33. At this point the Applicant made an application to submit a supplementary bundle, documents in support of the payments made on charge 6 towards transport. The Respondent was not opposed to this
4.34. Under cross examination the witness was asked to define double payment, and he responded saying it is when payment is made two times for the same service, or two payments are made towards the same invoice.
4.35. The Applicant denied that the service provider was double paid stating that the amount of R177 899 was paid back to the school account on the 3rd of May 2023 because the account provided by the service provider was incorrect the money was paid back.
4.36. The Applicant submitted further that Xakaza attested to an affidavit correcting the issue on the invoice where they stated that they had constructed the guard room, Xakaza was appointed to move the fence so that the guard room could be built.
4.37. The witness was asked to describe the procedure that should be followed in petty cash withdrawals, he explained that schools are allowed to withdraw R3000 00, cash is used for small things at the school, the school is required to keep receipts for all the money used, in this case the school withdrew R5000.00 and they had a requisition for R1420.00 and an amount of R3480.00 was not accounted for.
4.38. The Applicant submitted that the witness did not understand circular 2, His school had permission to withdraw R5000.00 and he could not be expected to account for the money that was in the petty cash box.
4.39. The Applicant submitted that he was never trained in Finance Management, nor was there an induction. He was left to see to the running of the school without any training. Further that he was unaware of the circular.
4.40. The Applicant submitted that the invitation to a meeting is proof enough of attendance.

5. APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE
   LUCAS MAKGATO (PRINCIPAL ITIRILENG SPECIAL SCHOOL)

5.1. He testified under oath and stated that he was appointed as the Principal at Itirileng Special School in 2020. He testified that Olga Molefe, who was the Principal before him did not do a proper hand over, The IDSO and the Circuit Manager also did not assist in that regard.
5.2. He testified that he was terminated in May 2025 following a disciplinary hearing, he appealed the decision of the disciplinary hearing and fell ill soon thereafter which necessitated his admission for four months in hospital.
5.3. On the 22nd of September 2025 he realized that he had not been paid his salary and he had not received his Appeal Outcome either.
5.4. He did not have any objections with regards to the process followed during the disciplinary hearing, he was not satisfied with the decision of the disciplinary hearing and felt that his case was not properly considered by the chairperson.
5.5. Allegation 1. He stated that when the construction of the classroom was done, he had been three years in the position as Principal. He received communication from the DGE that they were going to deposit funds for unplanned maintenance. There was a directive that accompanied the communication stating that there had to be a business plan before they could commence with the construction.
5.6. He invited the SGB and informed them that there was money for unplanned maintenance, minutes of that meeting are on page 15 of the Respondent’s bundle. They agreed to convene to draft the business plan as per the directive of the GDE. That meeting was held the following day, drafted the business plan and it was signed by the Principal, the Chairperson of the SGB, the IDSO, the Circuit Manager and the District Director and the Head of ISS was the last to sign. He testified that Dr Costa did not sign because the Business Plan was emailed to her, she responded on the 28th of March 2023 see page 8 of R1. She stated in her email that she was in agreement with the business plan. When he received that response from Dr Costa, he assumed that that was her approval. She instructed him to send the business plan to all concerned.
5.7. His responsibility was to call the SGB again in order to appoint the service providers. Adjudication was finalised, a service provider was selected and appointed. At the end of March, the architect was appointed to do the building plan. The plan was given to the constructor to start building.
5.8. He conceded that he did not take the plan to the Municipality, he assumed that the Business Plan was sufficient. The Business Plan clearly stated that they intended building a classroom, so he should have been guided by the District.
5.9. He testified that they received two quotations from two possible service providers, Xakaza Building and Construction was approved for R300 000 for the building of the PID classroom.
5.10. He conceded that he did not inform the Physical Planner of the GDE, he testified that the people from the District were the ones who should have informed the Physical Planner, he did not even know about the Physical Planner at that time.
5.11. He testified that Xakaza had quoted for the building of the classroom R300 000
5.12. Allegation 2. He denied that he paid Xakaza R500 000 and stated that he paid R300 000. He testified that they realized that the yard was small they did not have enough space for the construction of the classroom, they needed to move the fence backwards. Xakaza Construction was then appointed to extend the parameters of the school yard. Xakaza was paid from the school funds in relation to second job. The Department is wrong in saying Xakaza was paid R500 000.
5.13. Allegation 3. He denied that he paid for the construction of the guardroom and stated that he paid for the extension of the school parameters so that the guardroom could fit.
5.14. He testified that the EFT payment of R50 000 made on the 28th of March 2023 was for the construction of the gate and the finishing. The invoice was not clear, so he looked for the Director Mr Xakaza to clarify and he was not around Gauteng he was already in KZN, so he requested him to attest to an affidavit clarifying the issue. In his mind he was paying for the fencing.
5.15. The other requisition and payment for R50 000 is on page 46 and 47 of the R1.
5.16. Allegation 4. He denied that he made any double payments and stated that the two amounts were paid on the 2nd of May 2023, R88 900 and R88 999 paid to Plumbing and Welding, however the amounts didn’t go through because the account number issued was incorrect. On the 3rd of May the bank reversed the amount and paid it back to the school account. On the 4th of May the account number had been rectified and the amounts were paid again to the Plumbing company.
5.17. An amount of R85 658 was for another job, the school had broken doors and they used the original requisition. A total amount of R174 558 was paid to Plumbing and Welding.
5.18. Allegation 5. He testified that the limit for petty cash has always been R5000 since he started as the Principal. The finance policy states that the minimum is R5000 that can be withdrawn. He testified that there is no circular, he never received a circular and there was no hand over.
5.19. He denied that petty cash has to be deposited back into the account before withdrawing the full amount. The only time they deposit the money back into the bank is at the financial year end, if they were to deposit every time the bank charges would skyrocket.
5.20. He testified that page A1 is all the receipts for the rest of the petty cash amounting to R3480.00 and the R30.00 was left in the petty cash box. The witness of the respondent who was investigating did not check the petty cash box.
5.21. Allegation 6. The Applicant Mr, Makgato denied any knowledge of circular 2 of 2021. He conceded that he made the payments. He reiterated that he was not taken through induction when he was appointed as the Principal.
5.22. He testified that he was informed by the bank that they had to migrate from cheque to debit card. The Department did not communicate this to him.
5.23. Allegation 7. He denied that the payments in charge 7 did not have supporting documents. He stated that he accepted the invitations as supporting documents. He stated that it is unreasonable to expect the teachers to bring attendance registers because it is almost impossible to make copies of attendance registers when attending a workshop. If there is an invitation to attend a workshop, that is accepted as proof that the workshop was attended.
5.24. He explained that when the Department was conducting the investigation, some of the documents were with the auditors.
5.25. He stated that the workshop that was scheduled virtually was actually attended by the Deputy Principal and two other teachers at another school because of network issues.
5.26. Under cross examination the Applicant Mr. Makgato reiterated that the District was supposed to inform the Physical Planner, he knew nothing about the Physical Planner.
5.27. He stated that Dr Costa approved his business plan, when she responded to his email stating that she was in agreement with the activities. This was deemed to be approval. This was denied by the Respondent.
5.28. Mr. Makgato was asked who the architect that drew the plan was and he could not answer the question.
5.29. The Applicant Mr. Makgato was asked how it can be verified that the monies were paid for what he alleges, the invoices and requisition.

6. APPLICANT’S SECOND WITNESS
   THULISILE SEPHAKWE (FINANCE OFFICER)

6.1. She testified under oath and stated that she was also a member of the SGB in 2023.
6.2. She testified that in 2023 the Department gave the school money to build a classroom. The Principal called the SGB to inform them about the money. A business plan was drafted and taken to the District for approval and signatures. The business plan was forwarded to Dr Costa the District Director for her approval, Dr Costa responded within two days and confirmed that they could continue to utilize the money. The SGB was informed accordingly.
6.3. She testified that she does not know who the physical planner is or where they are based. The District should have guided them if there was anything that should have been done before the money could be utilized.
6.4. She testified that the school does not have a plan at all, the Department is aware of that because there is a classroom that was built by the Department, they also could not find the plan, they simply pointed out the space where they thought they could build that classroom.
6.5. She testified that the cost for building the classroom was R300 000 and that is what was paid to Xakaza.
6.6. Xakaza was further requested to remove the fence because there was a challenge with space, R100 000 was paid for moving the fence.
6.7. She testified that R88 900 appears twice, however the other two payments are different, it cannot be said that it was double payment if the amounts are not the same.
6.8. She testified that the account that was given to them by the plumber was incorrect.
6.9. She testified that the bank repaid the R 177 899 back into the school account as seen on page 72 of R1.
6.10. She testified that as long as she was the finance officer at Itirileng School for the disabled in 2023 petty cash withdrawal has always been R5000. One of the reasons they made it R5000 is because it is a special school, and the children sometimes carry food home. The school has vulnerable children, they buy food so that the children can carry some home.
6.11. She testified that they have never deposited the funds back into the bank, Instead, they typically withdraw an amount adjusted for the balance in the petty cash box. For example, if there is R300 left in the petty cash box, they withdraw R4700 in order to reach a total of R5000.
6.12. The witness further stated that depositing the funds back into the bank on a monthly basis would result in increased bank charges. If, however the funds left in the petty cash box exceeds R1000, then they can deposit it back to the bank.
6.13. She testified that they started using the debit card in 2021, when the banks were formally ending or discontinuing with the use of cheques. A memo was sent from the Department for them to go to the bank to effect the migration to debit cards and eft.
6.14. She testified that she was not aware of the circular, they were never trained in Circular 2 of 2021
6.15. She testified that when she has to pay someone for travelling, she usually requires an invite to the meeting / training or workshop as a supporting document.
6.16. Some don’t lodge their claims immediately, they do it after a month or so, that is why there would be a discrepancy in dates.
6.17. She testified that they use the SGB tariff to calculate the travel
6.18. She testified that the teachers that attended the virtual meeting had to go to another school.
6.19. She reiterated that their understanding of en route was that they could proceed with the building project.
6.20. She confirmed that R100 000 was for fencing and the other R100 000 was for classroom equipment.
6.21. She was questioned how she made the payment of R100 000 without the requisition.
6.22. The witness failed to explain why the invoice had something else and yet their explanation for the payment differs to what is in the invoice.
6.23. There was no explanation for the requisition of the R88 900 and its supporting document.
6.24. The witness was further questioned about why some of the payments were never authorised by the SGB chairperson and she explained that the chairperson could not be available every time they needed signatures.

7. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE

7.1. Charge one read: The Applicant was charged in terms of Section 18 (1)(f) of the EEA 76 of 1998 as amended with Misconduct in that “During the year 2023 at or near Itirileng School for the SID, you unjustifiably prejudiced the administration, discipline or efficiency of the Department of basic Education, in that you allowed an entity called Xakaza Building Construction to build a PID play classroom for profound learners at the school without involving the District Physical Planner and the building plan was not approved by the Municipality.
7.2. The first witness of the Respondent Mr. Sigwili gave a detailed explanation of the process that had to be followed before any construction could take place. This included the appointment of a qualified architect, submission of plans to the Physical Planner, the approval by the Head Office and thereafter approval by the Municipality. He stated that only after all those processes were followed and finalised could the construction begin.
7.3. The Applicant Mr. Makgato conceded that he did not involve the Physical Planner, explained that he did not know about the Physical Planner, he conceded that he did not submit the plans to the Municipality, but proceeded with construction having not acquired the necessary authorisation. His concession on its own is sufficient to prove misconduct.
7.4. The Applicant Mr. Makgato attempted to rely on an email from the Director which stated that she was in agreement with the plan, that he had to send it en route. The evidence was clear that send en route is a term used generally in the Department, meaning that he must follow process. He testified that the Director did not sign the plan because it had to come back to her after everyone had attached their signatures. The absence of the Director’s signature is a serious omission. The plan is not stamped, and the applicant had failed to comply with statutory requirements.
7.5. The Applicant further raised the issue of inconsistency, stating that there were structures built before his time and the principal before him had not followed processes. However, there was absolutely no evidence brought before me to demonstrate that those structures were built under similar circumstances or in violation of the same processes.
7.6. In SA Commercial catering and Allied Workers Union vs Irvin & Johnson Ltd, the Court was clear that inconsistency must be proven with comparable cases. It is not enough to merely allege it; in this case the Applicant has failed to do so.
7.7. Furthermore, the Applicant’s argument cannot stand, as a Principal and an Accounting Officer in terms of section 16A of the SASA, he is expected to know and comply with the processes. In Public Servants Association obo Haschke vs MEC for Agriculture matter, the Court held that ignorance of policies and procedures is not a defence, particularly for senior employees.
7.8. The second charge read: It is alleged that during the year 2023, at or near Itirileng School for SID, you wilfully or negligently mismanaged the finances of the school in that, you irregularly processed payments to the value of R500 000.00 to an entity name Xakaza Building and Construction instead of R300 000.00 to build the PID play classroom for profound learners. In view of the above you are charged with misconduct in terms of section 18 (1) (b) of the EEA 76 of 1998 (as amended).
7.9. The evidence of the Respondent’s second witness Mr Kgabi took me through the requisition forms, which reflected multiple payments made to Xakaza, the total of which amounted to R500 000.00 all of them having been authorised by the Applicant.
7.10. This was not denied by the Applicant. Further evidence proved that the SGB had appointed Xakaza based on their quotation of R300 000.00 which was the lowest quote. However, the Applicant conceded that he authorised a further payment of R200 000.00 to Xakaza over and above the approved amount. It is noted that there was no resolution approving the amount of R200 000.00 and no supporting documentation justifying the additional expenditure.
7.11. The Applicant’s explanation for the additional R200 000.00 was not supported and contradictory. At various stages, he stated that the money was paid for moving the fence, at some point it was not clear whether it was for furniture and equipment, but the invoice stated that it was for the construction of the guardroom. It is just not clear how the Applicant proceeded to authorise payment of an invoice that is worded incorrectly. These versions cannot coexist, they are mutually destructive.
7.12. In Stellenbosch Farmers Winery Group Ltd vs Martell et Cie & others 2003 (1) SA 11 (SCA), the Court held that where there are contradictions in a party’s version, the probabilities must be assessed. In this case, the probabilities favour the employer because the documentary evidence contradicts the Applicant’s explanation.
7.13. Even if it were accepted that the additional R200 000,00 was used for other purposes such as fencing or equipment, the employee still acted irregularly because he failed to follow procurement processes for that expenditure and, no approval was obtained, and no supporting documents were produced.
7.14. The Respondent argued that the Applicant cannot escape liability by merely changing the description of the expenditure. The issue is not only what the money was used for, but whether proper financial procedures were followed, and they argued that they were not.
7.15. In Lekabe vs Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development 2009 (4) SA 408 (SCA), the Court confirmed that the unauthorised and irregular use of Public Funds constitutes serious misconduct, particularly where the employee is in a position of trust.
7.16. The Applicant as the Principal and Accounting Officer had a fiduciary duty to safeguard the school funds and to ensure compliance with all prescripts. Instead, he authorised significant payments without documentary support.
7.17. The Respondent argued that during the investigation no documents were provided, and again during the disciplinary hearing none were provided and finally at the arbitration again no documentation ere provided in support of his defence. Instead, he continuously stated that he would have brought the documents had he known they would be required.
7.18. In the absence of any documents supporting the Applicant’s defence, the only inference that can be drawn is that the payments were irregular and unjustified and that the Applicant failed in his duties to manage the finances of the school.
7.19. Third Charge Read: It is alleged that during the year 2023, at or near Itirileng School for SID, you committed an act of dishonesty, in that you irregularly processed an amount of R100 000.00 to an entity named Xakaza Building Construction for building of a guardroom, whereas the guard room was built by the Department. In view of the above you are thus charged with misconduct in terms of section 18 (1) (ee) of the EEA 76 of 1998 (as amended).
7.20. The Respondent argued that dishonesty is the most serious form of misconduct. It was common cause that the guardroom was built by the Department, yet with this knowledge the Applicant authorised payment of R100 000.00 to Xakaza for the construction of a guardroom.
7.21. The Applicant submitted as evidence an affidavit by Mr Xakaza of Xakaza Construction stating that the money paid was in relation to moving the fence, however there is no satisfactory explanation why his invoices indicated that he was requesting payment for building of the guardroom. This defence appears as an after-thought.
7.22. The Applicant explained that he thought he was paying for fencing, that is a very negligent explanation, the accounting officer cannot think he is paying for one thing yet paying for another particularly payments of this magnitude.
7.23. In De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd vs CCMA 2000 (9) BLLR 995 (LAC), the Court held that dishonesty, regardless of the amount involved, destroys the trust relationship.
7.24. The Respondent argued that the actions of the Applicant justifies a dismissal and that the trust relationship has severely been tarnished citing SAPPI Novoboard Pty Ltd vs Bolleurs 1998 (1) SA 784 ((A)
7.25. The fourth charge read: It is alleged that during the year 2023, at or near Itirileng School for the SID, you wilfully or negligently mismanaged the finances of the school in that, you irregularly double paid an entity called Plumbing and Welding Pty Ltd for plumbing and windows glass to the value of R352 457.00 without authorization from the Department. The transactions are as follows:
Plumbing Welding 02 May 2023 R88 999 00
Plumbing Welding 02 May 2023 R 88 900 00
P & Welding 04 May 2023 R 88 900.00
P & welding 04 May 2023 R 85 658.00
TOTAL R 352 457.00

7.26. The Respondent led evidence and demonstrated that multiple payments were made to the same service provider Plumbing and Welding in a space of two days. There were no supporting documents and there were discrepancies between invoices and amounts paid.
7.27. The Applicant’s defence was that the two payments made on the 2nd of May 2023 amounting to R177 899.00 was reversed by the bank because the service provider had given the school incorrect banking details. This argument was disputed by the respondent stating that if it was so, why was it not brought to the attention of the investigator.
7.28. The Applicant referred to page 72 line 5 from the top of the Respondents bundle and showed that an amount of R177 899.00 was actually reversed by the bank into the school account.
7.29. Although the Applicant paid R88 999.00 and R88 900.00 on the 2nd of May 2023, a reversal is noted on the 3rd of May 2023 and then followed by other payments on the 4th of May 2023 amounting to R88 900.00 and R85 658.00. There was no supporting document for the amount of R85 658.00, instead an invoice for R 29 100 on page 65.
7.30. It is therefore not clear how the Applicant paid R 85 658.00 when the service provider had invoiced for much less.
7.31. Multiple payments in a short space of time made to the same service provider without explanation suggests irregular and potential improper conduct.
7.32. Lack of supporting documents, the absence of invoices for certain payments e.g., R85 658.00 points to non-compliance with financial controls which is often associated with dishonest conduct.
7.33. Discrepancies between invoices and payments, paying amounts that do not correspond with invoiced amounts e.g., paying R85 658 00 where an invoice reflects R29 100 is highly irregular and difficult to justify innocently.
7.34. It is further questionable that the reversed amount was not brought to the attention of the investigator, this undermines the Applicants integrity.
7.35. The unexplained discrepancies, lack of documentation, inconsistent explanations justify an inference of dishonesty or at a minimum gross financial misconduct.
7.36. In SAPPI Novoboard Pty Ltd vs Bolleurs 1998 (1) SA 784 (A) the Court confirmed that dishonesty involves a lack of integrity, including conduct that is misleading, deceptive, or shows a deliberate disregard for proper procedures particularly where trust is essential.

7.37. On charge five, it read: IT is alleged that during the year 2023 at or near Itirileng School for SID, you wilfully or negligently mismanaged the finances of the school in that you authorised a withdrawal of petty cash to the amount of R5000 and an amount of R3480.00 could not be accounted for. In view of the above action, you are thus charged with misconduct in terms of section 18 (1) (b) of the EEA 76 of 1998 {as amended).
7.38. The Respondent led evidence to show that an amount of R5000 was withdrawn and only R1620 could be accounted for.
7.39. The Applicant argued that he was not aware of the circular which stated that he could only withdraw a maximum of R3000, that he was not trained, and no induction was conducted which would have assisted him in the knowledge of procedures to be followed. He justified this by saying that they have always withdrawn R5000, and this was assisting them to buy food for the learners who were needy at the school.
7.40. He testified and submitted several invoices in an attempt to explain the unaccounted amount.
7.41. The Applicant later in the arbitration made an application to submit tax invoices marked as A1 in explanation of the unaccounted amount. The invoice appears to be tampered with, the date appears to be changed and the invoice was explaining the unaccounted amount. The invoices submitted by the Applicant did not support his evidence that they were usually buying food for the learners who were needy. This invoice appears to have been fabricated with the intention to deceive the arbitrator.
7.42. In National Union of Mineworkers vs CCMA 2011 (11) BLLR 1177 (LC), the Court held that an employee entrusted with funds has a duty to account for them, and failure to do so constitutes a misconduct.

7.43. Charge six read: It is alleged that during the year 2023, at or near Itirileng School for SID, you contravened Circular 2 of section 6.3.1 in that you authorised the debit card payments of more than R3000 to the value of R93 343.62 In view of the above you are thus charged with misconduct in terms of section 18 (1)(a) of the EEA 76 of 1998 (as amended).
7.44. The Applicant did not deny that he made the payments of more than R3000 and his defence was that he was not aware of the circular. He submitted further that he was not trained on the circular nor was he inducted when he was first appointed.
7.45. In Minister of Finance vs Gore NO 2007 (1) SA 111 SCA, the Court emphasised that senior officials are expected to comply with governance frameworks and cannot escape liability by claiming ignorance.

7.46. Charge seven read: It is alleged that during the year 2023, at or near Itirileng School for SID, you contravened Section 2.3.16 of circular 13 of 2000 in that you allowed the school to process payments for transport claims for the SGB and staff members to the value of R12 200.00 without supporting documents. In view of the above you are thus charged with misconduct in terms of section 18 (1) (a) of the EEA 76 of 1998 (as amended).
7.47. The Respondent led evidence demonstrating that payments were made for transport claims without supporting documents such as attendance registers.
7.48. The Applicant argued that invitations to meetings was sufficient proof that the staff member had attended the meeting.
7.49. This argument cannot be correct, the invitation is an invitation, it does not prove attendance. There were further contradictions with regards to the submissions made by the Applicant, amongst the documents submitted by the Applicant was an invitation to a virtual meeting, the Applicant attempted to explain this by saying the staff members attended the virtual meeting at another school.
7.50. The Applicant was not able to explain how they got to the amounts that they were paying for traveling to the staff and to the SGB. The witness of the Applicant stated that they used the SGB tariff which was not submitted as evidence. None of the venues could be remembered by the Applicant.
7.51. In SA Revenue Services vs CCMA (2017) 38 ILJ 97 (CC), the Court held that where an employee’s version is inconsistent and not supported by objective evidence it may be rejected.
7.52. The Applicant’s version was not credible, he changed versions multiple times, failed to produce documents despite claims that they exist.
7.53. On a balance of probabilities, I find that the Respondent was able to prove the guilt of the Applicant on all counts.
I find that the cumulative effect of all the factors indicates that the Applicant’s conduct as not merely negligent, but deceptive and/or grossly irregular, falling within the scope of dishonesty as contemplated in cases such as SAPPI Novoboard Pty Ltd vs Bolleurs 1998 (1) SA 784 (A).

8. FINDING

8.1. It is therefore my finding that the Applicant’s conduct breached the fundamental financial controls and standards of integrity.
8.2. The Applicant failed to act honestly and in good faith in handling the school funds and
8.3. The misconduct irreparably damaged the trust relationship.
8.4. Dismissal of the Applicant Mr. Makgato was an appropriate sanction
8.5. I accordingly make the following award

9. AWARD

9.1. I find the dismissal of the Applicant Mr. Lucas Makgato by the Respondent The Department of Education Gauteng to be substantively and procedurally fair on a balance of probabilities.

9.2. His dispute referral is dismissed.

GCINA MAFANI
Arbitrator 09 April 2026
ELRC720-25/26GP