IN THE ELRC ARBITRATION
BETWEEN: ELRC1361-25-26GP

EDITH MAMOSEBO “the Applicant”

and

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION – GAUTENG “the Respondent”

ARBITRATION AWARD

Case Number: ELRC1361-25-26GP

Date of award: 28 OCTOBER 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 5th of May 2026 and finalized on the 15th of September 2026. Both parties were present; the applicant was represented by Mr. Sunil Nerian of Sunil Nerian Inc and the Respondent was represented by Mr. Hassani Macheke the Employee of the Respondent.
1.2. The initial arbitration was held virtually however the parties agreed to a face-to-face hearing to mitigate against postponements due to network.

2. BACKGROUND
   2.1. The Applicant was employed by the Respondent (The Gauteng Department of Education) as a Principal of Sandown High School and was an Institutional Development and Support Officer or Circuit Manager at the time of her dismissal.

2.2. She was charged with misconduct in terms of item 5 Schedule 2 of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998 as amended.
2.3. The Applicant was charged with 8 counts of misconduct.
2.4. The Applicant pleaded not guilty to all the charges. At the Disciplinary hearing, she was found not was found guilty on charges 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. She was found guilty on charges 3, 7 and 8.

2.5. Allegation 3
It is alleged that on or around 2022, as principal of the school, you wilfully and negligently mismanaged the finances of the school in that you made the school to incur fruitless and wasteful expenditure to the amount of R984 630.00 by unilaterally signing a five-year contract, for the purchase of one inverter, four batteries and twenty four solar panels; without authorisation of the SGB, whilst you knew or ought to have known that it was wrong to do so. Your action constitutes misconduct.
2.6. Allegation 7
2.7. It is alleged that between the period 2022 and 2023, or anytime incidental thereto, as principal of the school, you committed an act of misconduct in that you failed and/or omitted to advise the SGB not to make payments without invoices in contravention of item 2.3.17 of Circular 13 of 2000, whilst you knew or ought to have known that it was wrong to do so. Your action constitutes misconduct. Below is the list of the transactions:
Date of payment Beneficiary Purpose of transaction Amount Findings
17/06/2022 KHO transport Unknown R2 200. 00 No invoice
17/06/2022 Zingoe Security Unknown R9 775. 00 No Invoice
22/06/2022 HDS Woods Unknown R18 250. 00 No invoice
12/07/2022 Ntate Le mme Unknown R1 140. 00 No invoice
15/07/2022 Black Horizon Unknown R152 270. 00 No invoice
21/07/2022 Mandela Day Catering Time Bank R20 000. 00 No invoice
3/08/2022 Umoya Financial services Accounting Services R12 000.00 No invoice
26/08/202 Dineplan Deposit Unknown R4000. 00 No invoice
07/09/2022 Duduzeka Unknown R194 535. 34 No invoice
17/02/2023 Mankind Butchery Cow donation R12 750. 00 No Invoice
17/02/2023 E. Mkandawire Cow donation R12 750. 00 No invoice
11/08/2023 Ink Link Branding Unknown R5 008. 05 No invoice
11/08/2023 Maremo Violin Unknown R4 980. 00 No invoice
11/08/2023 Ink Link Branding Unknown R5 008. 00 No invoice
07/12/2023 S.B. Mathokoza X-mas Party R2 600. 00 No invoice
31/01/2023 S.B. Mathokoza Unknown R26 200. 00 No invoice
31/01/2023 Pots Hire Mandela Day R1 500. 00 No invoice
4/09/2023 K. Khoba Director’s meeting R2 400. 00 No invoice
09/05/2022 Khokhela Whirlpool oven and ceramic R14 375. 00 No invoice
22/07/2022 E. Mamosebe Mandela Day R10 000 No invoice
29/03/2023 E. Mamosebe Unknown R 5 057. 00 No invoice
01/10/2022 Karee Krans Camp Matric Camp R57 870. 00 No invoice
TOTAL COST R574 668.39

2.8. Allegation 8
It is alleged that between 2022 and 2023, or anytime incidental thereto, as school principal, you contravened the school finance policy in that you authorised payments into personal bank accounts of staff and SGB members for the payments of service providers, whilst you knew or ought to have known that it was wrong to do so. Your action constitutes misconduct. Below is the list of transactions:
Date of payment Beneficiary Purpose of transaction Amount Findings
21/07/2022 Mandela Day Catering Mandela day Catering R20 000 Funds deposited into the bank account of SGB treasurer
11/08/2022 M.A.S.S Mate Rugby Kit R5000 R5000 paid to the SGB treasurer (invoice reflect R10 000 and requisition reflect R5 000
26/01/2023 S.B. Mathokoza Gift Cards R29 000 Money deposited into bank account of SGB Secretary S.B. Mathokoza
11/08/2023 Ink Link Branding Unknown R5 008. 00 Money deposited into the account of the principal
17/02/2023 E. Mkandawire Cow Donation for the funeral of former SGB chairperson R12 750. 00 Money paid to the account of GA, Mr E. Mkandawire
11/08/2023 Maremo Violin Unknown R4 980. 00 Money deposited into the bank account of SGB treasurer, Ms K. Khoba
11/08/2023 Ink Link branding Unknown R5 008. 00 Money deposited to District Office (JE) Nedbank Account instead of service provider
09/05/2022 Khokhela Whirlpool Oven and ceramic R14 375. 00 Funds deposited into business owned by the SGB Treasurer. It is illegal for the SGB members to do business with the school
09/01/2023 K. Khoba Touch Shop R10 000 Funds deposited into personal account of SGB treasurer
22/07/2022 E. Mamosebe Mandela Day R10 000 Funds deposited to the principal
29/03/2023 E. Mamosebe Unknown R5 057. 00 Funds deposited to the principal
25/04/2022 Stormvoel Toll free R10. 50 Principal used school bank card to pay for personal trip to home
13/04/2023 E. Mkandawire Toilet flush pipe, Gas Broom, Lubricant R3 307. 00 Money was paid to the account of GA, Mr Mkandawire instead of Morningside Hardware
TOTAL COST R124 495. 05

2.9. The Applicant was then dismissed from her employment following the Appeal which confirmed the sanction on the 8th of August 2025
2.10. Dissatisfied with her dismissal, the Applicant referred a dispute to the ELRC for unfair dismissal.
2.11. 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.)

ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
2.12. I am now required to decide whether the dismissal of the applicant was unfair substantively and procedurally and then to make an order accordingly.

RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS
3. FIRST RESPONDENT’S WITNESS
MR. MARIO MANDLAZI
3.1. Mr Mario Mandlazi testified under oath that he is employed by the Gauteng Department of Education (GDE) within the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) as an Investigator. He stated that he has approximately 30 years’ service with the Department and previously served as an Institutional Development Support Officer (IDSO) in Soweto, where he supervised approximately ten schools. His duties included monitoring compliance with departmental policies and legislation, overseeing the proper utilisation of school funds, conducting governance audits, and ensuring that School Governing Bodies (SGBs), School Management Teams (SMTs), and prescribed committees functioned effectively.
3.2. The witness explained the SIU investigation process, namely that complaints are allocated by the Director, complainants are consulted where possible, allegations are communicated in writing to the implicated employee, evidence is gathered through interviews and documentary analysis, and a preliminary report is compiled before a final report containing findings and recommendations is submitted to the Director for approval.
3.3. Mr Mandlazi testified that during September 2023 an anonymous complaint concerning Sundown High School was allocated for investigation. The matter had been logged with the office of the Head of Department. Before visiting the school, he was briefed that Ms Nyaka and his supervisor had already met with the Principal.
3.4. Referring to Bundle A, he confirmed that the complaint appears at pages 101–102, while page 100 reflects that an email relating to the complaint was sent to the Principal in September 2023. He testified that the investigation formally commenced on 4 September 2023. The investigation included meetings and interviews with the Principal on 11 September 2023, the SGB Chairperson and Treasurer on 18 September 2023, the Bookkeeper on 3 October 2023, and the General Assistant on 14 October 2023.
3.5. The witness referred to the scope of the investigation contained in Bundle A and confirmed that the background, findings, and recommendations recorded therein accurately reflected the outcome of the investigation. He specifically referred to the findings relating to Allegations 3, 7 and 8, including the procurement procedures requiring supporting documentation such as requisitions, invoices and receipts, and the approval process by the Treasurer and Principal. He confirmed that the final investigation report was approved and signed by the Director on 4 December 2023. According to the witness, the investigation was concluded within a period of less than three months, which he described as unusually expeditious due to the cooperation received.
3.6. Regarding procedural fairness, Mr Mandlazi denied that the employee suffered any prejudice during the investigation. He testified that the employee was informed of the allegations in writing, afforded an opportunity to respond both verbally and in writing, granted sufficient time to submit documentation, and that witness interviews were conducted openly rather than in secret. He further stated that he testified before the disciplinary enquiry and made himself available for questioning.
3.7. With reference to Bundle B, the witness identified the charge sheet containing eight allegations, signed on 3 September 2024. In relation to Allegation 3, he referred to the supporting documentation contained at pages 16–23, including the rental agreement concluded between Custom Capital Rental Finance and Sundown High School. He confirmed that the Department did not dispute that the equipment, comprising an inverter, four batteries and twenty-four solar panels, had been delivered to the school. He testified that the agreement constituted a sixty-month rental arrangement, with ownership of the equipment remaining vested in the supplier until expiry of the rental term. He further stated that, on behalf of the school, the relevant representatives in such transactions are the executive members of the School Governing Body, namely the Chairperson, Treasurer, and parent component representatives.
3.8. Mr Mandlazi testified regarding the prescribed procurement procedures applicable at school level. He explained that the procurement process must commence with a needs analysis, which is presented to the School Governing Body (“SGB”) for consideration. The SGB is required to verify that a legitimate need exists before any procurement process is initiated.
3.9. Thereafter, a transparent quotation process must be followed, requiring at least three quotations to ensure value for money and the acquisition of quality goods or services. The SGB may, where appropriate, invite prospective service providers to present their proposals before a decision is made regarding the appointment of a supplier.
3.10. Once a service provider has been selected, the official requesting the procurement is required to complete a requisition form, with the Treasurer assisting in the process. The supplier’s invoice must be attached to the requisition. The Finance Officer is responsible for verifying the supplier’s banking details, company information and other relevant particulars to ensure compliance and prevent irregularities, including possible tax evasion. The Finance Officer must further verify the quantity and specifications of the goods or services before approving the transaction.
3.11. The witness testified that, once the Finance Officer is satisfied, the documentation is submitted to both the Treasurer and the Principal for verification and approval. Payment may only be processed once both signatories have authorised the transaction. The Finance Officer then captures the transaction electronically, after which the Treasurer authorises the payment through the designated electronic platform, with the Principal providing the final approval.
3.12. Referring to pages 16–23 of Bundle B, Mr Mandlazi testified that the rental agreement in question had been signed only by the Principal and the service provider. He stated that the SGB, being the body responsible for financial governance, neither considered nor approved the agreement.
3.13. The witness referred to Section 16A of the applicable legislative framework, which obliges the Principal to advise and guide the SGB in the execution of its functions. He further testified that the SGB’s statutory term of office is limited to three years and that, for this reason, an SGB should not commit the school to contractual obligations extending beyond its term of office.
3.14. According to the witness, the agreement constituted a 60-month rental contract, whereas the SGB elected in 2022 would cease to hold office in 2024. He testified that this constituted the first indication of irregularity. He further stated that, even had the SGB Chairperson signed the agreement, such approval would nevertheless have been irregular because the duration of the contract exceeded the lawful term of office of the governing body.
3.15. With reference to page 18 of Bundle B, under the Schedule of Rentals, Mr Mandlazi testified that the Principal committed the school to a 60-month rental period with annual escalations. Referring further to page 17, Item G, he testified that the agreement excluded maintenance and servicing of the equipment. He concluded that the arrangement did not represent value for money and was financially prejudicial to the school, particularly because the school possessed sufficient funds to purchase the equipment outright.
3.16. The witness stated that the investigation included a market verification exercise, during which quotations were obtained for the outright purchase of equipment with the same specifications. The highest quotation received was slightly above R200 000, while the estimated purchase price was approximately R219 000. In his opinion, purchasing the equipment outright would have been significantly more cost-effective than entering into the long-term rental agreement.
3.17. Mr Mandlazi reiterated that only the School Governing Body was authorised to approve such a procurement transaction and that the investigation established that no such approval had been obtained.
3.18. Referring to page 16 of Bundle B, the witness testified that Mr Nicholas Naidoo signed the agreement as a witness despite also being associated with the service provider. He further testified that the investigation established that the Applicant, Ms Edith Mamosebo, who was the Principal at the time, signed the agreement. According to the witness, she admitted during the investigation that she had signed the contract.
3.19. The witness again referred to Section 16A, emphasizing that the Principal’s statutory role is to advise and support the School Governing Body rather than to assume its decision-making powers. He further observed that the agreement itself contained no designated space for the SGB Chairperson or any representative of the governing body to sign, which, in his view, demonstrated that the agreement was not intended to receive SGB approval.
3.20. Referring to page 16 of Bundle A, Mr Mandlazi confirmed that, according to the investigation report, the Treasurer of the School Governing Body was Ms Khoba, and the Chairperson was Mr Mdlalose.
3.21. Finally, the witness referred to page 86 of Bundle C, the contents of which were read into the record, in support of the findings reached during the investigation.

3.22. Mr Mandlazi referred to page 86 of Bundle C, which was read into the record, and testified that the investigation established that the document in question had been drafted by the service provider rather than by the Gauteng Department of Education. He stated that the Department does not utilize such resolutions in the execution of School Governing Body (“SGB”) functions and that standard departmental templates are ordinarily used.
3.23. The witness testified that the Principal’s statutory role is to advise and guide the SGB and that the Principal is not empowered to act contrary to the provisions of the Department or applicable legislation. He confirmed that, at the relevant time, Ms Khoba served as Treasurer and Mr Mdlalose as Chairperson of the SGB, whereas the impugned document was signed by Mr Buthelezi. He further referred to page 16 of Bundle B, identifying Mr Nicholas Naidoo as the representative of Custom Capital Rental Finance.
3.24. According to the witness, the document was unlawful in that it purported to confer extensive decision-making powers upon the Principal, thereby bypassing the governance role of the SGB. He testified that neither the Principal nor even the Head of Department would be authorised to make such financial decisions unilaterally. He emphasised that the parent members of the SGB exist to provide oversight, accountability and checks and balances in the administration of school finances.
3.25. Mr Mandlazi further testified that the Department’s prescribed governance framework requires proper planning, consultation, and adherence to established procurement processes. He stated that emergencies do not justify departures from these statutory requirements. He maintained that, under no circumstances, may the SGB delegate or cede its statutory financial responsibilities to the Principal.
3.26. Referring to pages 24–65 of Bundle A, the witness analysed the tax invoices issued by Custom Capital Rental Finance and testified that the school made monthly rental payments under the agreement from October 2022, with annual escalations of approximately 10 per cent. He outlined the progression of the monthly payments, beginning at R16 410.50 in October 2022 and increasing over time to R22 908.67 by November 2025 and March 2026.
3.27. The witness referred to page 66 of Bundle A, which summarized the debit order payments made by the school. He testified that, by 31 March 2026, the school had already paid approximately R839 431.63 under the rental agreement and that the total payments would approach or exceed R983 630.00 by the expiry of the contract in 2027. He expressed the opinion that, by the end of the rental period, components of the solar system, particularly the batteries and inverter, would likely require replacement, thereby diminishing the overall value of the transaction.
3.28. Mr Mandlazi testified that a proper feasibility study, comparative quotations and consultation process should have preceded the procurement decision. Based on the investigation and the financial analysis conducted, he concluded that the transaction constituted gross fruitless and wasteful expenditure and that the actual financial prejudice to the school was likely to exceed the projected contract value.
3.29. The witness further testified that the investigation did not establish an improper relationship between the Applicant and the service provider, and the investigators accepted, at face value, that their dealings were professional. However, he stated that certain aspects of the transaction raised concern, including the fact that the service provider signed the agreement as a witness rather than in a representative capacity and subsequently prepared a document purporting to confer extensive authority upon the Applicant. In his view, these circumstances created uncertainty regarding the validity and propriety of the contractual arrangements.
3.30. Mr Mandlazi further testified that, during the investigation, the Applicant admitted that she had personally decided to sign the contract without the requisite authorisation from the School Governing Body.

3.31. The witness concluded that, as the accounting officer of the school, the Applicant could not rely on ignorance of the applicable procurement and governance requirements. He stated that, had she been uncertain regarding the legality of the transaction, she had various avenues available to obtain guidance, including consulting the Institutional Development Support Officer (IDSO) or other officials within the Department. He further testified that the Applicant had previously served as a principal at another school in Tembisa and was therefore an experienced school manager who could not be regarded as unfamiliar with the applicable legislative and governance framework.
3.32. In relation to Allegation 7, Mr Mandlazi testified that, in terms of Section 16A of the South African Schools Act, 84 of 1996, the Principal represents the Head of Department at school level and is required to advise and guide the School Governing Body (“SGB”) in the execution of its statutory functions. He stated that the Principal is the final accounting officer in respect of school finances and bears the responsibility of ensuring that all financial transactions are lawful, properly authorised and supported by the requisite source documentation.
3.33. The witness testified that payments may not be processed in the absence of an original invoice or other supporting source documents. According to him, where payment is affected without an original invoice, the expenditure cannot properly be accounted for, and such payment constitutes a departure from prescribed financial management procedures.
3.34. Mr Mandlazi referred to Circular 13 of 2000 (pages 102–106 of Bundle B), entitled Directives Regarding the Administration of School Funds in Public Schools, issued by the Head of Department in terms of section 37(1) of the South African Schools Act. He testified that the Circular was approved on 25 February 2000 and circulated to Head Office, District Offices, and all public schools, with instructions that its contents be brought to the attention of all School Governing Body members. He further explained that District Circuits are responsible for communicating the contents of such circulars to School Management Teams and SGB members through ongoing guidance and workshops.

3.35. The witness explained that Circular 13 prescribes the financial administration procedures applicable to public schools. Before any electronic funds transfer (“EFT”) is authorised, the original invoice must be available as the primary source document. The accounting official must verify the supplier’s company name, tax registration number, banking details, description of the goods or services, quantities supplied, unit prices, total amount payable and applicable Value Added Tax. Only once these verifications have been completed may payment be processed. The Principal, acting as the final authorising official on the EFT system, bears ultimate responsibility for ensuring compliance with these requirements.
3.36. Referring to paragraph 2.1.5 of Circular 13 read together with section 16A of the South African Schools Act, Mr Mandlazi testified that the Principal is obliged to provide guidance to the SGB to ensure sound financial management, proper record-keeping of all financial transactions and accountability for the school’s assets. He further referred to paragraph 2.3 to paragraph 2.3.17 of the Circular, dealing with financial administration and bookkeeping requirements.
3.37. The witness referred to page 32 of Bundle A, which summarises transactions verified during the investigation through an examination of the school’s bank statements covering the period 17 June 2022 to 31 January 2023. He testified that, although the investigators confirmed that the payments had in fact been debited from the school’s bank account, they were unable to locate the corresponding invoices or supporting documentation at the school.
3.38. Mr Mandlazi stated that the Finance Officer advised the investigators that she could not locate the missing invoices. The Principal was informed of the deficiency and afforded an opportunity to locate and produce the outstanding documentation. However, by the time the investigation was finalised, the invoices had not been produced.
3.39. The witness testified that, should invoices subsequently have been produced during these proceedings, he would assume that copies or reprints had been obtained from the relevant service providers after the investigation had been concluded. He stated that such documents had not formed part of the investigation and had therefore not been subjected to verification. Consequently, he was unable to express any opinion regarding their authenticity or evidential value.
3.40. According to the investigation, a total of 22 financial transactions, amounting to R574 668.39, were processed without supporting invoices, as reflected on pages 108–155 of Bundle B and summarised on page 32 of Bundle A.
3.41. Mr Mandlazi further testified that certain beneficiary names reflected on the transaction schedule differed from the descriptions appearing on the corresponding bank statements. He referred, by way of example, to payments made to KHO Transport in the amount of R2 200 and Single Security in the amount of R9 775, both of which, according to the investigation, were authorised without completed requisitions or the prescribed supporting documentation.
3.42. Referring to pages 16–28 of Bundle A, the witness testified that the investigation report identifies and verifies payments made from the school’s account without the requisite invoices or requisition forms. He cited, as an example, a payment made on 17 June 2022 to KHO Transport, where no completed requisition could be produced, with the result that the investigators were unable to determine the purpose for which the payment had been made.
3.43. The witness also referred to page 246 of Bundle B read together with page 32 of Bundle A concerning two payments effected on 17 February 2023, namely R12 750.00 paid to Mankind Butchery for a cow donation and a further R12 750.00 paid on the same date to Mkandawire.
3.44. Mr Mandlazi testified that the applicable Finance Policy makes no provision for donations of this nature. He stated that the investigators were informed that the owner of the butchery alleged that he had not received the original payment, whereupon the same amount was paid to a general worker. According to the witness, the duplicate payment was never recovered or reimbursed to the school, resulting in a financial loss.

4. SECOND RESPONDENT’S WITNESS
   Ms. THANJEKWAYO NDABI
   4.1. Ms Thanjekwayo Ndabi testified that she served as the bookkeeper at Sundown High during 2022, having been appointed by the School Governing Body (SGB). Her contract terminated in June 2025. She is currently employed as a bursar at Franklin D. Roosevelt Primary School.

4.2. She stated that her responsibilities were confined to financial management. Upon assuming her duties, she found that the school’s financial records were in arrears. In reconstructing the cash book, she relied primarily on bank statements due to the absence of supporting source documents.
4.3. She testified that each financial transaction required supporting documentation to enable proper allocation to the relevant general ledger account. The absence of requisitions, invoices, contracts, and other source documents made it impossible to verify the nature and legitimacy of numerous transactions.
4.4. She explained that every payment should be supported by a duly authorised requisition indicating the relevant general ledger account and bearing the required approvals in accordance with the school’s financial policies.
4.5. She further testified that several debit orders appeared on the bank statements without any supporting documentation. Based on her experience, such payments should have been supported by valid agreements between the school and the respective service providers. The debit orders related to labour-saving devices, including laptops, telephones, and a solar installation contract.
4.6. Allegation 3. Ms Thanjekwayo referred to page 14 of Bundle B and testified that she requested the contract relating to the debit orders to verify its validity.
4.7. Upon examination, she found that the contract had not been duly executed. It lacked the required signatures from the supplier and the authorised representatives of the SGB.

4.8. She testified that the SGB resolution authorising the contract was incomplete, with no evidence that the SGB had resolved to authorise the principal to conclude the agreement on behalf of the school. Although the supplier’s name appeared on the document, the required signature was absent.
4.9. She further testified that the agreement was concluded for a period of 60 months (five years), exceeding the three-year term of the serving SGB. The contract also provided for an annual escalation of 10%, which would have resulted in the school’s liability exceedingly approximately R1 million over its duration.
4.10. Ms Thanjekwayo concluded that the prescribed procurement processes had not been followed. Having reviewed the SGB minutes, she found no evidence that the procurement process had been undertaken or that supporting documentation existed to justify the appointment of the service provider.
4.11. She outlined the prescribed procurement process as follows:

• The SGB must identify and approve the need for the service, and the expenditure must be budgeted for.
• At least three quotations with clear specifications must be obtained.
• The quotations must be evaluated, and a compliant service provider selected.
• The SGB must adopt a formal resolution approving the appointment and the contract value.
• The appointed service provider may then proceed with the installation.
• The contract must be signed during a properly constituted SGB meeting before installation, and upon completion the service provider must issue a clearance certificate.
4.12. Ms Thanjekwayo testified that the solar rental agreement was not in the best interests of the school, given its poor financial position. She stated that purchasing the solar equipment would have been a more financially prudent option than entering into a rental agreement.

4.13. She referred to page 19 of the contract, which provides that the agreement would continue indefinitely after the expiry of the initial term. She testified that there was no service level agreement and that the school would not acquire ownership of the equipment.
4.14. Ms Thanjekwayo further testified that the school was experiencing severe financial difficulties, including periods during which staff salaries could not be paid. Although the installation of the solar system was intended to reduce electricity costs, she stated that it instead exacerbated the school’s financial position.
4.15. She testified that the school is presently under administration and attributed its financial distress to the mismanagement of school funds.
4.16. Referring to pages 24–65 of Bundle B, Ms Thanjekwayo identified invoices dated 13 October 2022 reflecting the initial solar rental amount, payment date and description of the solar equipment.
4.17. Referring to page 36, she identified an invoice dated 23 October 2023 reflecting an increase in the monthly rental from R16,410.00 to R18,932.79.
4.18. She testified that on the day that the solar was installed she was at the school, she saw the Principal arriving with the service provider, Mr. Nicholas Naidoo.
4.19. Ms Thanjekwayo further testified that she discovered a payment for the solar rental dated 16 March 2022, whereas the written contract was only signed on 27 September 2022. She regarded this discrepancy as irregular and cause for concern.
4.20. Referring to page 66, she testified that the total value of the debit orders paid in respect of the solar rental amounted to R839,431.63.
4.21. She further testified that, had the prescribed quotation process been followed, the school could have considered more cost-effective alternatives.
4.22. Ms Thanjekwayo testified that, for audit purposes, she requested the relevant SGB minutes from the SGB Secretary and was furnished with a document recording the members who were allegedly present at the meeting. Page 67 of bundle B are the minutes of the SGB photocopied and provided by Mr. Mathokoza the SGB Secretary.
4.23. She testified that there was no evidence suggesting that the Principal was given authority by the SGB to approve the Solar contract. She stated that authority must come from the Executive having been approved in an official SGB meeting.
4.24. It was noted that the Applicant disputes the authenticity and legitimacy of the document produced as minutes of the SGB.
4.25. Under cross examination Ms. Thanjekwayo was referred to pages 132, 140, 144 of B to show that there was a reduction in the schools’ electricity bill, she denied that there was a reduction and stated that it cannot be viewed as a reduction because they were paying the electricity bill as well as the contract.
4.26. Under cross examination she reiterated that the Principal was not authorized by the SGB, that the Treasurer and the Chairperson are not the SGB.
4.27. Ms. Thanjekwayo testified that the document appearing at pages 102 to 107 is Circular 13 of 2000, which provides directives regarding the administration of funds in terms of section 37(1) of the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996 (“SASA”).
4.28. She referred to item 2.3.17 of the circular, which provides that all payments shall be made only upon submission of invoices. She testified that, before a school may make any payment, an invoice must be obtained from the service provider. In the absence of an invoice, no payment may be made. She explained that invoices are essential for accountability, as they ensure that the correct person is paid the correct amount for services rendered and that payments are made for their intended purposes.
4.29. She further testified that the school is required to follow proper procurement procedures. These procedures include obtaining quotations, completing, and signing a requisition form to authorise the payment, and ensuring that the relevant delivery notes and invoices are available. The payment must thereafter be authorised by three designated signatories.

4.30. Before authorising any payment, the signatories must satisfy themselves that the requirements of Circular 13 of 2000 have been complied with. She explained that payments must be processed through the electronic funds transfer (“EFT”) system. The Finance Officer is responsible for loading the transaction, whereafter the SGB Treasurer must verify it and ensure compliance with the applicable requirements. The Principal must then give final authorisation for the release of the payment, having satisfied herself that all the required supporting documents are attached and are correct.
4.31. With reference to items 12 and 14, Ms. Thanjekwayo testified that payments made to Link Branding were processed without invoices. She further testified that the bank accounts into which the payments were made belonged to the District Office and the Principal, respectively.
4.32. With reference to items 10 and 11, Ms. Thanjekwayo testified that two payments of R12 750.00 each were reflected in the records. One payment was made to Mankind Butchery, while the other was made to Mkandawire, the school’s General Assistant.
4.33. She explained that these payments arose following the death of the former SGB Chairperson, Mr Buthelezi, for whose funeral the school had donated a cow. The first payment of R12 750.00 was made to the butcher, who subsequently indicated that he had not received the money. A second payment of the same amount was then made into the personal bank account of Mr Mkandawire. However, according to her testimony, the amount paid to Mr Mkandawire had not been refunded to the school as at the date of her testimony.
4.34. Ms. Thanjekwayo further testified that the butcher subsequently informed the school that he had, in fact, received the payment. She stated that, in those circumstances, Mr Mkandawire ought to have refunded the duplicate payment to the school, but this had not been done.

4.35. She testified that the school had contravened the applicable rules and regulations of the Gauteng Department of Education (“GDE”), as school funds are required to be utilised for educational purposes.
4.36. Ms. Thanjekwayo testified that, in terms of section 16A of SASA, the Principal is an ex officio member of the School Governing Body (“SGB”). She explained that the Principal’s role includes providing guidance to the SGB on applicable policies, legislation, and regulatory requirements.
4.37. She stated that the Principal had failed to discharge these duties.
4.38. With reference to item 19, Ms. Thanjekwayo testified that the monies paid in relation to Khokhela were paid to the SGB Treasurer. She stated that members of the SGB may not conduct business with the school unless the applicable requirements relating to the disclosure of interests are complied with.
4.39. She further testified that the SGB Treasurer was a member of the company that had received payment from the school.
4.40. Ms. Thanjekwayo further referred to the payment of R57 870.00 made to Karee Krans in respect of the matric camp. She testified that the school camp did not take place as intended and that the money had not been refunded to the school.
4.41. Ms. Thanjekwayo testified that there was a lack of accountability in respect of the payments relating to Duduzeka. She stated that two payments had been made, one of which was supported by an invoice, while the other was not supported by an invoice.
4.42. With reference to item 13, Ms. Thanjekwayo testified that the payment relating to Moremo Violin involved a misrepresentation, as the money was paid into the personal bank account of the SGB Treasurer.
4.43. Under cross-examination, the witness testified that she had been unable to effectively prepare a report due to missing records relating to certain transactions. She further stated that she had informed the SGB Treasurer of the missing documents.
4.44. The witness maintained that she had handed over all the files in her possession to the Investigator. She disputed the assertion that all the transactions were supported by invoices and reiterated that none of the transactions relating to Allegation 7 had invoices.
4.45. Ms. Thanjekwayo testified that pages 156 to 205 contained the Finance Policy of Sandown High School, which took effect on 1 February 2023. The policy was approved by the SGB Treasurer, Ms. Khoba, on 30 March 2023. She further referred to the document on pages 206 to 233, which contained the Finance Policy for Sandown High School and Alexandra High School, effective from 23 November 2021 and approved by the SGB Chairperson, Mr. Buthelezi.
4.46. The witness testified that the 2023 School Finance Policy prohibited direct payments into the personal bank accounts of staff members and SGB members. She explained that the policy required all procurement activities to be planned in such a manner as to avoid the direct transfer of funds into the personal accounts of staff members and SGB members for the procurement of goods and services on behalf of the school.
4.47. With reference to the table under Allegation 8, Ms. Thanjekwayo testified that it reflected payments made to staff members and SGB members in contravention of the South African Schools Act (SASA) and the school’s Finance Policy. She identified the payments listed in the table, including R20 000.00 paid to the SGB Treasurer, Ms. Khoba, under item 1; R5 000.00 paid to Ms. Khoba under item 2; R29 000.00 paid to the SGB Secretary, Mr. Mathokoza, under item 3; R5 008.00 paid to the Principal, Ms. Mamosebo, under item 4; R12 750.00 paid to the General Assistant, Mr. Mkandawire, under item 5; and R4 980.00 paid to Ms. Khoba. She testified that the total amount paid into personal bank accounts was R124 495.05.
4.48. Ms. Thanjekwayo further testified that the Principal was authorised by the Head of Department to safeguard the school bank card and, accordingly, could not absolve herself of responsibility for the monies spent. She stated that the payments made by the SGB had a financial impact on the school and that the Principal had failed to establish whether the funds had been used for their intended purposes. According to the witness, no invoices had been submitted to substantiate the purchases made or the expenditure incurred.
4.49. During cross-examination, the Applicant disputed the applicability of the Finance Policy relied upon in support of the charge, contending that the policy had not been in effect or ratified in 2022, when the transactions in question took place. In response, Ms. Thanjekwayo maintained that transferring school funds into the personal bank accounts of staff members and SGB members was unlawful, as such practice was prohibited by both the Finance Policy and SASA.
4.50. The witness further disputed the contention that the policy had not been approved. She maintained that the policy had, in fact, been signed by the SGB Chairperson, Mr. Mdlalose, and the SGB Treasurer, Ms. Khoba.

5. THIRD RESPONDENT’S WITNESS
   VHONGANI PHEPHENYANI

5.1. Mr. Vhongani Phephenyani testified in his capacity as Deputy Director: Labour Relations within the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Education, based at the Marshalltown Head Office. He has served as a Presiding Officer in disciplinary proceedings since 2016.
5.2. Responsibilities of the Presiding Officer
5.3. The witness testified that his responsibilities as Presiding Officer include, inter alia:
5.4. Consulting with the Employer Representative.
5.5. Explaining the employee’s procedural and substantive rights.
5.6. Ensuring that the proceedings are conducted fairly and in accordance with the applicable procedure.
5.7. Considering and evaluating the evidence presented by the parties to arrive at an informed and impartial decision.
5.8. Affording both parties an opportunity to present mitigating and aggravating circumstances prior to determining an appropriate sanction; and
5.9. Maintaining neutrality, objectivity, and impartiality throughout the proceedings.
5.10. Appointment and Commencement of the Disciplinary Proceedings
5.11. The witness testified that he was appointed to preside over the disciplinary proceedings in September 2024 by the then Head of Department, Mr. Roofus Motlana.
5.12. Reference was made to pages 35–38 of Bundle A, which contain the appointment documentation relating to the Presiding Officer and the Employer Representative, Mr. Macheke. Both appointments were approved on 3 September 2024.
5.13. Following his appointment, the witness personally sent an email to the Employer Representative advising him of his availability to commence the proceedings.
5.14. Reference was further made to pages 29–34, containing the Notice of the Disciplinary Committee and the charge sheet issued to the employee, MS Mamosebo.
5.15. The witness testified that he first became aware of the charge sheet when it was presented by the Employer Representative at the commencement of the disciplinary proceedings, during approximately October/November 2024.
5.16. The witness testified that, in his capacity as Presiding Officer, he read the charges into the record and satisfied himself that the employee understood the allegations levelled against her.
5.17. The employee was afforded an opportunity to plead to each charge. The witness explained that, had the employee pleaded guilty, she would have been afforded an opportunity to present mitigating circumstances.
5.18. The employee confirmed that she understood the contents of the charge sheet and thereafter entered a plea of not guilty to all charges.
5.19. The witness further testified that the employee did not raise any objection that the charges were stale or had been instituted after an unreasonable delay when she was asked whether she understood the charges. According to the witness, had such an objection been raised at that stage, it would have been considered as a procedural issue.
5.20. Findings on the Charges
5.21. Reference was made to page 42 of the bundle.
5.22. The findings of the disciplinary committee were recorded as follows:
5.23. Charge 1: Not guilty
5.24. Charge 2: Not guilty
5.25. Charge 3: Guilty
5.26. Charge 4: Not guilty
5.27. Charge 5: Not guilty
5.28. Charge 6: Not guilty
5.29. Charge 7: Guilty
5.30. Charge 8: Guilty
5.31. The employee was therefore found guilty of Charges 3, 7 and 8 and not guilty of the remaining charges.
5.32. The witness testified that, in determining an appropriate sanction, consideration was given to the seriousness and nature of the misconduct, as well as the position occupied by the employee.
5.33. In particular, the fact that the employee occupied the position of Principal was considered material, as the position carried significant responsibility and was regarded as a position of trust.
5.34. Having considered the relevant mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the recommended sanction was dismissal.
5.35. The witness testified that the disciplinary proceedings were postponed on various occasions.
5.36. The postponements were attributable, inter alia, to periods of leave, an issue involving SADTU, and the employee being booked off due to illness.
5.37. Reference was made to page 67 of the bundle in this regard.
5.38. The witness testified that, after consideration of the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, a report was prepared and submitted in accordance with the applicable procedure.
5.39. The Office of the Director: Labour Relations subsequently drafted a letter addressed to the Head of Department in accordance with the prescribed protocol.
5.40. The witness further testified that, prior to the commencement of the disciplinary proceedings, the employee had been advised of her right to lodge an appeal with the MEC.
5.41. Reference was made to pages 86–91, including the document headed “Sanction”, which was signed by the Head of Department and dated 25 July 2025.
5.42. The witness testified that, in matters involving serious misconduct, the appropriate sanction is determined on the merits of each individual case. Possible sanctions may include dismissal, demotion, or suspension without pay, depending on the circumstances of the matter.
5.43. During cross-examination, the witness testified that his authority as Presiding Officer was not limited and that procedural matters fell within the scope of his responsibilities.
5.44. He further testified that, even where a procedural objection is not raised by the employee or her representative, he retains a responsibility, where appropriate, to identify and address procedural irregularities.
5.45. It was put to the witness that the charges had been instituted after an unreasonable delay. The witness conceded that he could not determine or explain the reason for the approximately nine to twelve-month delay in bringing the charges.
5.46. The witness confirmed that the Employer Representative’s bundle was presented to him on the first day of the disciplinary proceedings.
5.47. He further confirmed that his appointment as Presiding Officer was signed and approved on 3 September 2024.
5.48. The witness, however, denied that the issue of the charges being stale had been raised with him during the disciplinary proceedings.

6. FOURTH WITNESS RESPONDENT
   TSHOLOFELO SEEMELA
   6.1. Tsholofelo Seemela testified that she was the Chairperson of the Administrative Committee and a parent component member of the School Governing Body (“SGB”) at Sandown High School. She stated that she was elected Chairperson of the SGB between approximately February and May 2024.

6.2. She explained that the responsibilities of the SGB included, inter alia, developing and implementing school policies; overseeing the school’s finances and infrastructure; participating in the appointment of educators; monitoring the delivery of the curriculum; formalising the school’s plans; supporting extracurricular activities; formulating plans of action; approving teachers’ overtime; arranging specialised training for teachers to improve the school’s pass rate; and ensuring proper procurement processes at the school.
6.3. The witness testified that all procurement decisions had to be approved by the full SGB. She stated that the school was required to prepare a budget projecting its future financial position and identifying its anticipated objectives. The budget was then allocated to the various activities of the school.
6.4. In relation to Allegation 3, the witness testified that Ms. Mamosebo was the Principal of Sandown High School during 2021, 2022 and 2023.
6.5. She described the procurement procedure as follows: the school was required to advertise the relevant requirement and invite service providers to submit quotations. The SGB would then assess the documentation submitted by the service providers and select the provider offering the best and most cost-effective proposal. Once the selection had been approved, the SGB would notify the successful service provider, who would be required to sign a Service Level Agreement before commencing the work. Upon completion of the work, and once both parties were satisfied, the service provider would submit an invoice. The SGB would then sign the requisition form, after which payment could be made by the school.
6.6. The witness testified that the SGB had not approved the installation of the solar-panel project and had not selected a service provider. At the time, the SGB was still in the process of identifying and selecting an appropriate service provider. She stated that, during the installation, she had been at the school to attend a meeting. She was in the Principal’s office with Mr. Buthelezi, the former SGB Chairperson, and the Treasurer. The circumstances prompted the convening of an urgent SGB meeting to consider whether the installation had been properly authorised.
6.7. She testified that the school was experiencing financial constraints and could not afford to pay the service provider the substantial amount being charged. She further stated that the SGB had not been informed of the terms of the agreement. At the ensuing SGB meeting, the members discovered that the Principal had signed the contract alone. The witness stated that, although she accepted that the school required solar energy, the SGB had not been involved in the procurement process and had been caught off guard. The members were consequently left to question who had authorised the installation. Both the Chairperson and the Treasurer were questioned and denied having signed the contract. The meeting resolved that the supplier should be summoned.
6.8. At the subsequent meeting, which the supplier attended, Mr. Naidoo conceded that he had signed the agreement with the Principal by relying on an old addendum previously signed by the SGB. He had used that resolution to validate the current solar contract. The witness testified that Mr. Naidoo was informed that his conduct amounted to fraud. He responded that it was not the first occasion on which he had used a resolution in that manner and that his conduct had never previously been questioned.
6.9. The witness testified that the contract signed by the Principal was for a period of five years, whereas the term of office of the SGB was three years. In her view, the Principal could not bind an incoming SGB to a contract that it had neither approved nor considered. She further stated that contracts could not extend beyond the three-year term of the SGB.
6.10. She testified that the solar contract had severely depleted the school’s finances. By the end of the contract, the school would have paid more than R1 million, yet it would not acquire ownership of the solar equipment because the agreement was structured as a rental arrangement.
6.11. The witness stated that the Principal was an experienced school principal and ought to have known that she lacked authority to bind the SGB beyond its term of office.
6.12. She referred to the minutes of the SGB meetings appearing at pages 67 to 101 of Bundle B. She testified that the minutes had been extracted from the original minute book in which the SGB Secretary had recorded the proceedings. At page 71, paragraph 2, the Treasurer was recorded as stating that no procurement procedures had been followed. The members were reportedly surprised that the project would cost the school more than R1 million. The witness further testified that there had been a quotation for approximately R300 000.00, whereas the school had ultimately been bound to a contract exceeding R1 million. She stated that the school had derived no financial saving from entering into the agreement. In addition, the solar installation did not supply the entire school; it covered only the administration block.
6.13. The witness further testified that all the contracts at the school had been concluded with Mr. Naidoo and that most of them were for five-year periods. These contracts included agreements relating to laptops, closed-circuit television cameras and photocopying machines.
6.14. She stated that the Principal had a longstanding relationship with Mr. Naidoo and that they had known each other since the period when the Principal had served as principal of Ivory Park High School.
6.15. Finally, the witness testified that Sandown High School had subsequently been placed under administration as a result of the mismanagement of its funds.
6.16. Evidence in Relation to Allegation 7
6.17. Ms. Seemela testified regarding the importance of maintaining proper financial accountability in respect of all expenditure incurred by the school. She explained that whenever funds are disbursed from the school’s coffers, the expenditure must be supported by appropriate source documents, such as invoices, requisitions, and other relevant supporting documentation. Such documents are necessary to ensure transparency, accountability, and proper financial management.
6.18. Ms. Seemela testified that items 10 and 11 in the table on page 32 of Bundle A relate to payments made for the purchase of a cow intended as a donation towards the funeral of Mr. Buthelezi. Two payments of R12 750.00 each were made to the butcher, Mankind, and Mkandawire, respectively.
6.19. She testified that the two payments were not supported by the requisite source documents. She further emphasised that the school’s funds are intended primarily for the benefit and educational needs of learners and should not be utilised for donations without proper authority and compliance with the applicable financial procedures.
6.20. Ms. Seemela further testified that Mkandawire had not refunded the money to the school. Consequently, the school had not recovered the funds paid to him, resulting in a financial loss to the school.
6.21. Payment of a Deposit to Karee Krans Camp
6.22. Ms. Seemela testified that item 24 in the table on page 32 of Bundle A reflects a payment of R57 870.00 made by the school as a deposit for a Grade 12 camp at Karee Krans Camp.
6.23. She stated that the school failed to follow the prescribed procedures when making the payment. The payment was authorised by the Principal and the Treasurer. However, the planned tour did not take place because the Principal subsequently terminated the contract by cancelling the tour.
6.24. Despite the cancellation, the school did not recover the deposit paid to Karee Krans Camp. Ms. Seemela’s evidence was therefore that the school had incurred expenditure without obtaining the intended benefit and had not recovered the amount paid.
6.25. Ms. Seemela testified that members of the School Governing Body (SGB) do not receive salaries for performing their functions, although they may be reimbursed for travel expenses incurred in the execution of their duties.
6.26. She further testified that a person may not simultaneously serve as an SGB member and act as a service provider to the school, in accordance with the applicable legal and regulatory requirements. Her evidence in this regard highlighted the need to avoid conflicts of interest and to ensure that the school’s financial transactions comply with the governing legal framework.
6.27. Evidence in Relation to Allegation 8
6.28. Ms. Seemela testified that the financial policy contained on pages 156 to 205 was approved by the SGB Chairperson, Mr. Mdlalose, and the Treasurer, Ms. Khoba, on 30 March 2023
6.29. She explained that a meeting had been convened to develop a new financial policy for Sandown High School. Members of the SGB participated in the meeting, and the Principal was also present.
6.30. Ms. Seemela testified that the policy was intended to regulate the school’s financial transactions and, in particular, to prevent direct payments to staff members and SGB members in circumstances prohibited by the policy. She emphasised that the policy constituted a binding governance instrument that had to be complied with by all relevant office-bearers and persons involved in the administration of the school’s finances.
6.31. She testified that the transactions reflected on pages 33 and 34 of Bundle A should not have occurred because they were contrary to the provisions of the financial policy.
6.32. Ms. Seemela explained that the SGB adopted the new financial policy in response to challenges identified in the school’s finance office. These challenges included financial transactions undertaken by the Principal and the Treasurer without the necessary supporting source documents.
6.33. She testified that the purpose of the policy was to strengthen financial oversight, promote accountability, and ensure that all expenditure was properly authorised and documented.
6.34. She further explained that the primary responsibilities of the SGB include overseeing the school’s finances and participating in the management and governance of the school. The Principal, in turn, is expected to provide the SGB with appropriate guidance and advice regarding the implementation and application of school policies.
6.35. According to Ms. Seemela, the Principal failed to provide the necessary guidance to the SGB in relation to these responsibilities.
6.36. Evidence Under Cross-Examination
6.37. Under cross-examination, Ms. Seemela testified that discussions concerning the installation of the solar system commenced only a few weeks before the installation took place.
6.38. She confirmed that the minutes relating to the relevant SGB proceedings were legitimate and had been adopted by the SGB.
6.39. Ms. Seemela further testified that the installation of the solar system was unlawful and that all members of the SGB were opposed to it.
6.40. Ms. Seemela testified that the law firm of Mathatha Attorneys had been appointed to investigate the lawfulness of the contract relating to the solar installation.
6.41. Upon receipt of the attorneys’ report, the SGB met with the service provider to renegotiate the terms of the contract. She explained that the SGB was of the view that the contractual terms were not beneficial to the school and that its preference was to terminate the contract.
6.42. Ms. Seemela further testified that the SGB considered the Principal’s unilateral decision to sign the contract to have been unlawful. Her evidence was that the Principal had acted without the requisite collective approval of the SGB.
6.43. Ms. Seemela denied that the Principal had conducted a handover to the Acting Principal, Mr. Masala.
6.44. The evidence of Ms. Seemela, in relation to Allegation 7, centred on the alleged failure to comply with proper financial management procedures, the absence of supporting documentation for certain payments, the non-recovery of funds paid by the school, and concerns regarding the use of school funds for purposes that did not directly benefit learners.
6.45. In relation to Allegation 8, her evidence focused on the adoption and implementation of the school’s financial policy, the alleged contravention of that policy in respect of certain transactions, and the failure to provide adequate financial oversight and guidance.
6.46. Her evidence under cross-examination further addressed the circumstances surrounding the installation of the solar system, the SGB’s opposition to the contract, the investigation conducted by Mathatha Attorneys, the subsequent attempts to renegotiate the contractual terms, and the alleged absence of a handover to the Acting Principal, Mr. Masala.
6.47. Taken together, Ms. Seemela’s testimony raised concerns regarding compliance with the school’s financial policy, adherence to proper governance procedures, accountability for public or school funds, and the respective responsibilities of the Principal and the SGB in the administration and management of the school.
6.48. She further explained that the primary responsibilities of the SGB include overseeing the school’s finances and participating in the management and governance of the school. The Principal, in turn, is expected to provide the SGB with appropriate guidance and advice regarding the implementation and application of school policies.
6.49. Upon receipt of the attorneys’ report, the SGB met with the service provider to renegotiate the terms of the contract. She explained that the SGB was of the view that the contractual terms were not beneficial to the school and that its preference was to terminate the contract.
6.50. Ms. Seemela further testified that the SGB considered the Principal’s unilateral decision to sign the contract to have been unlawful. Her evidence was that the Principal had acted without the requisite collective approval of the SGB.
6.51. She explained that the school had not determined a specific amount for the project because it had not been included in the school’s budget. At the time, the SGB was still assessing which option would be most suitable. Before that assessment had been completed, however, the Principal had signed the contract.
6.52. Ms. Seemela was asked whether, despite the reduction in the electricity bill, she still considered the solar installation to constitute wasteful expenditure. She reiterated that, by the end of the contract, the school would have paid more than R1 million, without acquiring ownership of the solar equipment. She stated that the school could not afford the contract’s substantial monthly instalments and that the decision to sign the contract was unjustifiable.
The Applicant’s representative submitted that the installation had taken place on a school day while the Applicant was invigilating. Ms. Seemela did not dispute this
7. THE APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS
APPLICANT: MRS EDITH MAMOSEBO
7.1. Edith Mamosebo (“the Applicant”) was appointed as Principal of Sundown High School in July 2021. Her appointment is reflected in Bundle C, page 2. She subsequently accepted an offer of appointment as an IDSO (Cluster Leader) on 1 December 2023. The handover of her duties at Sundown High was conducted in January 2024, and she left the school at the end of January 2024.
7.2. The Applicant had extensive experience within the Department of Education. She had previously served as an educator, HOD, Deputy Principal and Principal, and had acted in the capacity of Principal before her appointment at Sundown High. She therefore acknowledged that she was familiar with the applicable departmental rules, financial policies, and her obligations as Principal.
7.3. The investigation report is dated 21 November 2023 and was signed by Mr. Motshabi and forwarded to Mr. Rufus Mmutlana. The subsequent motivations were signed on various dates, namely 21 November 2023 by K. Motshabi, 27 November 2023 by P. Selowa, 29 November 2023 by O. Bodibe and 4 December 2023 by R. Montana.
7.4. The Applicant testified that she was not informed of the date on which the investigation was completed and was unaware that the Department intended to institute disciplinary proceedings against her.
7.5. The notice of disciplinary proceedings appears in Bundle A, page 29, while the notice signed by Mr. Rufus Mmutlana, HOD, appears at page 34 and is dated 3 September 2024.
7.6. The Applicant testified that approximately nine months elapsed before a date and venue for the disciplinary proceedings were allocated. She received the notice towards the end of September 2024 after being summoned to the District by the District Director. The notice was served on her by Ms Amelia Ngwenya of Labour Relations, who briefly explained the process to her. The disciplinary enquiry commenced in October 2024.
7.7. The Applicant complained that she was not furnished with an explanation for the delay between the completion of the investigation and the institution of disciplinary proceedings. She further testified that the delay prejudiced her ability to prepare her defense.
7.8. The Applicant testified that she requested documents from Makatu, the Acting Principal, to enable her to prepare for the disciplinary enquiry.
7.9. She stated that she had followed a prescribed checklist during the handover of the school and that Refiloe was present as a witness. She further testified that, while she was attending a conference in Durban, Mandlazi attended the school and removed documents.
7.10. According to the Applicant, her direct interaction with Mandlazi was limited to discussions concerning school banking, rubble collection and the solar installation contract. Mandlazi allegedly obtained the relevant documents from the Principal’s Assistant. The Applicant maintained that no inventory was prepared of the documents removed from the school.

ALLEGATION 3 – SOLAR INSTALLATION
7.11. The Applicant testified that, during her tenure, certain subjects, including Consumer Studies and IT, involved practical examinations. The school experienced electricity interruptions, resulting in the examination work of eight learners becoming unavailable. The matter was investigated and was attributed to a technical glitch, after which the affected learners were permitted to rewrite the examination.
7.12. The Applicant stated that the school consequently required a reliable alternative power source. The matter was discussed at an SGB meeting. The option of acquiring a large generator was rejected because of the anticipated noise, and solar energy was subsequently identified as the preferred solution.
7.13. The SGB delegated the Finance Committee to source a suitable service provider. Quotations were obtained and presented to the Finance Committee, Treasurer, Principal and SGB Chairperson.
7.14. The Applicant testified that she was called away from her invigilation duties and found Naidoo, Khoba and Buthelezi at the school. She informed them that she could not remain for long because of her examination duties. Khoba and Buthelezi indicated that they were satisfied with Almester, whose contact person was Naidoo. The Applicant briefly examined the documentation and signed it before returning to her invigilation duties.
7.15. The Applicant subsequently confirmed the school’s position to the bank when Naidoo sought financing. The installation proceeded thereafter.
7.16. The Applicant maintained that the installation provided tangible benefits to the school, including allowing learners to charge tablets and supplying electricity to the administration block. She also testified that there was a reduction in the school’s electricity expenditure.
7.17. The electricity figures relied upon by the Applicant were:
• August: R68,817.25
• September: R96,239.10
• October: R54,731.00
• November: R44,396.45
• December: R45,968.64
• March: R33,636.75
7.18. The Applicant denied that the expenditure on the solar installation constituted fruitless and wasteful expenditure.
7.19. She testified that she became concerned when questions were subsequently raised regarding the installation. She reported the matter to District Director Shirley Moloi and informed her that the Treasurer and Chairperson had not signed the rental agreement, contrary to her understanding. She stated that, had she known this at the time, she would have recalled the contract and reconsidered the arrangement.
7.20. During cross-examination, however, the Applicant conceded that the solar panels ultimately did not benefit the school because they were not functioning due to the electrical-grid circumstances.

ALLEGATION 7 – FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND PAYMENTS
7.21. The allegation concerned, inter alia, the failure or omission by the Applicant to advise the SGB against making payments without supporting invoices.
7.22. The Applicant denied that she failed in this regard and maintained that invoices were available when payments were processed.
7.23. She explained the school’s payment procedure as follows:
• Receipts and supporting documentation were received by the Finance Office.
• A requisition was completed.
• The documentation was submitted to the SGB for scrutiny and approval.
• Once approved, an instruction for payment was loaded.
7.24. The Applicant testified that she was never informed of missing documentation and maintained that documents were removed from the Finance Office without her knowledge or approval.
7.25. The Applicant explained that Thanjekwayo was appointed by the SGB on an ad hoc basis after the previous bookkeeper’s contract expired. She commenced in approximately September 2022 and attended the school twice a week to assist the administrators and monitor the financial administration.
7.26. She recommended the use of SAGE after identifying problems with the existing financial system, and SAGE was subsequently adopted.
7.27. The Applicant explained that Mkhandawire had been tasked with purchasing a cow for Buthelezi’s burial. When they arrived at the butcher, they were informed that payment had not been received. Because the burial was imminent, the Applicant authorized the funds to be transferred to Mkhandawire, who paid the butcher.
7.28. The Applicant testified that the butcher subsequently repaid the school once the original payment had cleared.
7.29. The Applicant explained that certain payments were made pursuant to proposals by the relevant committees, including school functions and activities. Where a formal invoice was unavailable, she stated that a needs analysis, requisition, or other supporting documentation was attached.
7.30. She explained that payments into personal accounts were, on occasion, made where service providers did not have suitable banking facilities or where urgent payments were required.
7.31. The Applicant also testified that some payments made to her personally constituted reimbursements for expenses she had incurred on behalf of the school. As an example, she purchased food for Grade 12 learners from her own funds when the school’s food-service provider experienced difficulties.
7.32. With regard to the R6,000 invoice from Umoya Finance Services, the Applicant explained that the requisition was for R12,000 because the service provider was allegedly owed for previous services.
7.33. The Applicant maintained that she did not personally make payments and therefore did not have an opportunity to scrutinize every supporting document before payment was processed.
7.34. The Applicant testified that funds deposited into her account in connection with Mandela Day were intended for a school fundraising event involving the purchase and sale of braaied meat.
7.35. Bundle B, page 120, reflects a credit of R9,601 into the school’s account on 27 July.
7.36. The Applicant acknowledged that R10,000 was deposited into her account for the Mandela Day event and that she authorized the deposit.
7.37. She further acknowledged that R5,057 was deposited into her account as reimbursement for food purchased for learners. She stated that the transaction was approved by the SGB, although it was reflected as “unknown” in the records.
7.38. The Applicant explained that approximately R4,980 was paid into Khoba’s account because the music provider for the matric dance did not have a bank account. Although there was no requisition available, an invoice was received.
7.39. She further explained that R29,000 was paid into Mathokoza’s account for Grade 12 awards gift cards because the normal payment process would allegedly have taken between seven and fourteen days. Mathokoza was then able to use his card to make the relevant purchases.
7.40. The Applicant also explained that a deposit of R57,870 relating to the matric outing was non-refundable after the school cancelled the outing.

ALLEGATION 8
7.41. The Applicant’s defense to Allegation 8 was substantially based on the applicable financial policy at the relevant time.
7.42. She testified that the policy recognized by the SGB and herself was the Alex-Sundown Financial Policy. The policy appearing at Bundle B, page 206, was approved and signed on 13 November 2021 by the respective principals.
7.43. The Applicant maintained that the policy did not contain a provision expressly prohibiting payments into staff or SGB members’ personal accounts.
7.44. She further testified that, at the relevant time, it was accepted practice within the Finance Committee to make certain payments into personal accounts for legitimate school-related activities.
7.45. The Applicant disputed the proposition that a later draft policy had already become binding when the transactions in question occurred. She testified that, following the death of Buthelezi, a strategy meeting was held on 24, 25 and 26 March, during which various policies were considered and a new draft was prepared with assistance from officials from Head Office.
7.46. According to the Applicant, the draft policy was never properly finalized, ratified, or distributed to the relevant stakeholders. She maintained that the formal departmental process for adoption of the policy had not been completed.
7.47. She relied upon the fact that the policy was signed only after the relevant policy sessions and contended that transactions occurring before its adoption could not properly be assessed against that policy.
7.48. The Applicant further testified that payments to staff members were sometimes made where EFT facilities were unavailable to service providers, particularly for urgent purchases such as food for learners. She maintained that receipts and other supporting documentation were ordinarily attached.
7.49. During cross-examination, however, the Applicant conceded that section 27(2) of the applicable 2023 policy prohibited the SGB from being paid by the school in their capacity as SGB members.
7.50. She nevertheless maintained that the policy relied upon by the Department had not been validly adopted at the time of the transactions in question.
7.51. The Applicant contended that any irregularities attributable to her were administrative in nature rather than dishonest
or intentional.
7.52. She submitted that administrative shortcomings are capable of being remedied through training, guidance and corrective measures and should not necessarily attract disciplinary sanction of the nature imposed.
7.53. She further raised the issue of the delay between the investigation and the institution of disciplinary proceedings, contending that the approximately nine-month delay was excessive and prejudicial.
7.54. The Applicant also pointed out that the disciplinary proceedings occurred approximately a year after she had been promoted to the position of IDSO/Cluster Leader.

CROSS-EXAMINATION AND MATERIAL CONCESSIONS
7.55. During cross-examination, the Applicant acknowledged that:
7.56. She had extensive experience in school management and had served in senior positions within the Department.
7.57. Her appointment as Principal required her to comply with GDE policies and procedures; failure to comply with departmental policy could constitute misconduct; where the SGB acted outside its lawful authority, she was required to advise the SGB and, where necessary, consult her seniors.
7.58. She understood that the SGB had authority over school finances but that such authority was subject to applicable legislation and policy and that procurement procedures were regulated by the school’s financial policy.
7.59. She conceded that an intentional act could not properly be characterized as a mere administrative error.
7.60. She confirmed that some invoices relating to Allegation 7 were only obtained from suppliers after the event.
7.61. She conceded that she could not account for the utilization of certain funds deposited into her former Nedbank account.
7.62. She confirmed that she authorized the R10,000 payment into her account for the Mandela Day fundraising event.
7.63. She conceded that she did not have a requisition for the R4,980 payment to Khoba.
7.64. She could not identify the entity or person known as Havilla in respect of one of the transactions.
7.65. She conceded that payments to SGB members for services rendered through their private companies could give rise to a conflict of interest.
7.66. She confirmed that she was responsible for safeguarding the school’s purchasing card.

8. SECOND WITNESS FOR THE APPLICANT
   MICHAEL MPHO MAGOMANE

8.1. Magomane testified that he has been the Chairperson of the School Governing Body (SGB) at Sandown High School since April 2024.
8.2. He confirmed that he was familiar with the document appearing on pages 83–84, which he identified as an email sent by Mrs. Mamosebo, the former Principal of Sandown High School, to Emmanuel Makatu, the Deputy Principal. He confirmed that he was copied on the email and that he responded to it in his capacity as SGB Chairperson.
8.3. Magomane testified that there had been disputes concerning the SGB elections from the outset, with Seemela challenging the election of office bearers within the SGB. He further testified that Seemela and Letlape refused to hand over to the incoming SGB. The dispute was eventually resolved by the Gauteng Department of Education (GDE), which confirmed the incoming SGB as the legitimate governing body.
8.4. Despite this confirmation, Seemela and Letlape allegedly continued making payments on behalf of the school until the bank signatories were changed. Magomane testified that there was resistance during this process and that Seemela and Letlape were eventually removed from the SGB around May 2024.
8.5. Regarding the school’s financial records, Magomane confirmed that he instructed the bookkeeper to make the available bank statements and related documents accessible. He testified that he subsequently handed the available documents to Mrs. Mamosebo. He further confirmed that invoices and receipts had been printed and handed over to her. However, he conceded that there was no record or inventory documenting which specific documents had been handed over.
8.6. The witness ultimately conceded that there had been no formal handover.

9. FOURTH WITNESS FOR THE APPLICANT
   SAKHILE MATHOKOZA
   9.1. Sakhile Mathokoza testified on behalf of the Applicant. He stated that he is employed as an educator deployed at Sandown High School, where he teaches Geography and English. He served as the Secretary of the School Governing Body (SGB) from 2022 to 2024 and serves as the school’s Events Coordinator.

9.2. Mathokoza testified that the solar installation project was brought before the SGB following concerns raised in the principal’s report. The report highlighted an increase in theft and vandalism, malfunctioning security cameras and damage to the computer laboratory infrastructure. These issues had affected the school’s preparations for the final examinations.
9.3. As a possible solution, the hiring of a small generator was proposed. However, the disadvantages associated with a generator were discussed, and Khoba eventually suggested the installation of solar panels. The SGB favored the solar option and instructed the Finance Committee (FINCOM) to determine the scale of the project and proceed with the procurement process.
9.4. Following the school holidays, Seemela raised concerns about the solar installation. The SGB acknowledged that the matter had been discussed in her absence. She also questioned why the principal appeared to have signed the relevant documentation alone.
9.5. Mathokoza testified that the Treasurer expressed feeling betrayed by the principal, as the solar project had allegedly originated from her proposal. The principal responded that the Treasurer and other relevant parties had been present when she signed the documents. According to the Principal, she had been called from her classroom to sign and had returned to class immediately afterwards.
9.6. The Chairperson also stated that he was unaware of the contract. Although he was a member of FINCOM, he argued that the committee lacked the authority to make decisions under the South African Schools Act (SASA). He subsequently addressed the SGB on the relevant provisions of SASA.
9.7. At a subsequent meeting, the solar project was discussed in greater detail. The principal explained that EXCORP had been favored because the company already had existing contracts with the school, making it easier to build on the established relationship. The school’s limited cash flow was another consideration, as the arrangement would allow the project to be financed through a loan.
9.8. The discussions were prolonged, and the SGB eventually resolved that the service provider should be invited to explain the arrangement because a bank was involved. Members raised concerns about how the loan had been approved on the strength of only one signature, namely that of the principal. The questions remained unanswered, and Nicholas Naidoo was expected to clarify the matter.
9.9. At the next meeting, Naidoo attended, but the bank representative was unable to do so because she had reportedly been involved in an accident while travelling to the school.
9.10. Naidoo’s explanation regarding the contract and loan
9.11. Mathokoza testified that Naidoo informed the SGB that FINCOM had considered the proposal and subsequently contacted him to prepare a contract. Naidoo explained that he had attended a meeting in the principal’s office where the Treasurer and Chairperson were present, with the principal joining them later.
9.12. According to Naidoo, the Principal was briefed on the contract, signed the relevant documents, and left. He further stated that the Treasurer and Chairperson subsequently approached him with a request for a favor. Naidoo declined to disclose the nature of the request to the SGB.
9.13. When questioned about how the loan had been obtained with only one signature, Naidoo explained that an addendum had authorized the principal to sign on behalf of the SGB. The Chairperson and Treasurer had previously granted the principal a proxy to make changes to the contracts.
9.14. The meeting was satisfied with Naidoo’s explanations and concluded its deliberations. A subsequent meeting was held to discuss his responses further.
9.15. Mathokoza explained that the addendum authorized the principal to add further equipment to the project. He testified that the Chairperson eventually admitted that he had been present when the principal signed the documents and further confirmed that he knew about the addendum.
9.16. When questioned about how the addendum had been prepared without the knowledge of the SGB, the Chairperson responded that the previous SGB had been aware of it.
9.17. Mathokoza testified that a meeting was held at the Maslow Hotel at the instance of the Deputy Chairperson, Mr. Mdlalose. The meeting involved discussions concerning the Chairperson, and, according to Mathokoza, it became apparent that the SGB had been misled by the Chairperson.
9.18. It was resolved that the Chairperson should be instructed to convene an SGB meeting at which members would consider a vote of no confidence in him.
9.19. The meeting was subsequently convened, and Seemela proposed a vote of no confidence. The motion was put to a vote and passed.
9.20. Mathokoza testified that he was instructed to draft a letter informing Shirley Molobi of the developments. The Director subsequently attempted to intervene, but the Chairperson passed away during that period.
Mathokoza confirmed that the solar installation was operational at the time of his testimony.
9.21. He testified that the SGB considered both the continuation and cancellation of the project. The SGB ultimately resolved that the solar installation itself was not in dispute; rather, the concerns related to the process followed in implementing the project. The SGB therefore discontinued Phase 2 of the solar installation.
9.22. Allegation 7:
9.23. In relation to Allegation 7, Mathokoza testified that the school made payments into his bank account for various purposes, including:
• Section 38 payments for additional work performed.
• SGB travel allowances.
• Travel allowances when attending workshops in his capacity as an educator; and
• Reimbursements or payments when he was instructed to purchase items on behalf of the school.
9.24. He disputed the allegation, describing it as misguided. He maintained that the relevant documents and procedures had been developed and approved by the SGB.
9.25. According to his testimony, the school consistently complied with the applicable procedures and ensured that there was a paper trail recording the destination and purpose of the funds. He stated that, for every transaction in which he was involved, the relevant documentation was completed and submitted to the Finance Department.
9.26. Mathokoza confirmed that he was familiar with the policy appearing on page 204 of Bundle B. However, he testified that the document was a working draft and had not been finalized or formally adopted.
9.27. He explained that the school was using a Section 17 finance policy at the time. Following the passing of Buthelezi, Seemela, Khoba and Makhwabe had been tasked with developing a new finance policy. Mdlalose subsequently made the development of the policy a priority.
9.28. Mathokoza testified that several issues raised by SGB members remained under discussion. The policy was developed around February to March 2023, and the team was expected to reconvene to incorporate and consider the recommendations proposed during the process.
9.29. He expressed surprise at seeing a signed copy of the policy during the disciplinary enquiry, as the team had never returned with a final draft. He denied having any knowledge of the signing or formal adoption of the policy.
9.30. With reference to page 83 of Bundle A, Mathokoza testified that a handover meeting had been arranged between the outgoing and incoming SGBs. However, the outgoing SGB was not ready to hand over, and the meeting was postponed.
9.31. The parties met again the following Thursday to consolidate the reports and documentation in preparation for the handover. Mathokoza stated that the relevant documents were left in the principal’s office with Mr. Masala, who was also acting in that capacity at the time.
9.32. He explained that the outgoing SGB consisted of Seemela as Chairperson, Letlape as Treasurer, and himself as Secretary. According to his testimony, they had left all the relevant documentation ready for the handover.
9.33. Masala subsequently informed them that they did not need to return because he would conduct the handover himself.
9.34. The following week, Masala contacted Mathokoza to enquire whether he had returned to collect the files. Masala reportedly informed him that he could not locate the files in his office but undertook to check the school’s CCTV footage.
9.35. Mathokoza testified that he then realized that the files had been lost.
9.36. Mathokoza’s testimony addressed three principal areas: the decision-making process surrounding the solar installation, the payments made to him in connection with his school and SGB responsibilities, and the handling of SGB records during the transition between governing bodies.
9.37. Regarding the solar project, his evidence outlined the initial motivation for the installation, the role assigned to FINCOM, the subsequent concerns about the contract and loan, and the explanations provided by Naidoo concerning the addendum and the principal’s signing authority. He maintained that the central dispute concerned the process followed rather than the operation of the solar installation itself.
9.38. Regarding Allegation 7, Mathokoza maintained that the payments into his account related to authorized school or SGB activities and that supporting documentation was completed and submitted to the Finance Department.
9.39. Regarding the financial policy, he maintained that the document on page 204 of Bundle B was a draft that had not been finalized or formally adopted to his knowledge.
9.40. Finally, concerning the handover of records, he testified that the outgoing SGB had prepared the relevant documents but left them in the principal’s office after being informed that Mr. Masala would conduct the handover. He subsequently learnt that the files could not be located.

10. FOURTH WITNEES FOR THE APPLICANT
    NICHOLAS NAIDOO
    10.1. Nicholas Naidoo testified that he is the Commercial Director of Almesta (Pty) Ltd, trading as X Corp Business. He explained that X Corp Business is a trading name. He was referred to page 18 of exhibit B, being the rental agreement concluded with Custom Capital Finance. He testified that on 27 September 2022, the principal signed the agreement in his presence and that he witnessed her signature. He identified page 14 as the internal delivery note issued by Almesta following the installation of the solar system at Sandown High School.
    10.2. He testified that his company had several other contracts with the school relating to the provision of photocopiers, a PBX system, a public address (PA) system, CCTV cameras and a computer laboratory.
    10.3. Regarding the circumstances that led to the conclusion of the solar rental agreement, Naidoo testified that he had been informed that the school was experiencing a serious electricity crisis. Mr. Buthelezi, who was the Chairperson of the School Governing Body (SGB), approached him and requested that he provide a power solution for the school. Naidoo proposed a solar solution to the Finance Committee (FINCOM). He testified that, during the meeting, the consensus was that his company was the preferred supplier.
    10.4. Naidoo testified that he subsequently went to the school with a draft contract that he had prepared. Mr. Buthelezi was present, and the principal was called upon to sign the agreement. The solar installation was carried out towards the end of September or at the beginning of October 2022.
    10.5. He explained that the installation took place during the school holidays. Mr. Buthelezi and the school caretaker were present during the installation. He also met with the Principal and the Treasurer at some stage. According to Naidoo, Mr. Buthelezi was satisfied with the installation and indicated that he intended to recommend Naidoo to other schools.
    10.6. Naidoo testified that, in December 2022, he was called to a meeting at which the solar contract was raised as a major concern. He was informed that the SGB had not agreed to the contract. He stated that the previous agreements concluded between his company and the school had been dealt with through the Principal, the Treasurer, and the Chairperson.
    10.7. He testified that approximately 95% of his company’s agreements were rental agreements and that all the contracts concluded with Sandown High School were rental agreements. He explained that rental agreements were considered affordable because they included maintenance and technical support, which he identified as benefits of this arrangement.
    10.8. Regarding the scope of the solar installation, Naidoo testified that the system supplied power to the school’s administration block, including the reception area and telephone systems. He could not recall precisely whether the computer laboratory was also covered, although he believed that it might have been.
    10.9. Naidoo explained that, when a contract approaches termination, his company would ordinarily engage with the client to discuss upgrading the system and concluding a new agreement. Alternatively, the client could buy out the system. He testified that his company was then in negotiations with the school regarding a solution to meet the electricity requirements of the entire school.
    10.10. He further testified that, in the ordinary course of business, his company would either obtain a separate resolution for the principal agreement or rely on a resolution that was already in place. He stated that he did not know why the Treasurer and the Chairperson had not signed the solar rental agreement.
    10.11. Under cross-examination, Naidoo conceded that he had known the principal from her previous school, where his company had concluded contracts at Ivory Park with Mrs. Mamosebo. He further conceded that the principal had contacted him after taking up her position at Sandown High School and informed him that the school was experiencing an electricity crisis. She had explained that the school was paying substantial amounts for equipment that was not functioning. She then invited him to meet with the Chairperson and the Treasurer.
    10.12. Naidoo conceded that he proposed his solar solution to Sandown High School and that his prior relationship with the principal gave him a historical advantage.
    10.13. He further conceded that his company had between eight and ten contracts with Sandown High School, all of which were rental agreements. Most of those contracts were for a period of 60 months. He explained that schools generally preferred three-year contracts, but that his company offered both three-year and five-year options to accommodate affordability considerations. He conceded that three-year contracts were generally aligned with the term of office of the SGB.
    10.14. Naidoo also conceded that all the contracts concluded with the school had been signed by him and the principal.
    10.15. When questioned about the indefinite clause in the solar rental agreement, Naidoo explained that it was a standard clause in his company’s contracts. He stated that the intention was not to allow a customer to continue making payments without receiving any benefit. According to him, his company ordinarily engaged with the client before the termination date to negotiate the way forward.
    10.16. Asked whether the terms of the agreement, including the indefinite clause, had been explained to the school, Naidoo testified that his company consulted with clients before the expiry of the contract to discuss possible upgrades and reach an agreement on the next steps. He stated that the clause had never been allowed to take effect in his company’s dealings with clients.
    10.17. Finally, Naidoo testified that, had the SGB decided to terminate the solar rental agreement, the school would have been required to pay the amount stipulated in the contract.
11. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE

11.1. The Applicant was charged in terms of Section 18 (1) of the EEA. Eight (8) charges were brought against the Applicant. The Presiding Officer Mr. Phephenyani found the Applicant not guilty on Allegations 1,2,4,5 and 6. The Applicant was found guilty on Allegations 3,7 and 8.
11.2. Allegation 3
It is alleged that on or around 2022, as principal of the school, you wilfully and negligently mismanaged the finances of the school in that you made the school to incur fruitless and wasteful expenditure to the amount of R984 630.00 by unilaterally signing a five-year contract, for the purchase of one inverter, four batteries and twenty four solar panels; without authorisation of the SGB, whilst you knew or ought to have known that it was wrong to do so. Your action constitutes misconduct.

11.3. Allegation 7
11.4. It is alleged that between the period 2022 and 2023, or anytime incidental thereto, as principal of the school, you committed an act of misconduct in that you failed and/or omitted to advise the SGB not to make payments without invoices in contravention of item 2.3.17 of Circular 13 of 2000, whilst you knew or ought to have known that it was wrong to do so. Your action constitutes misconduct.
11.5. Allegation 8
It is alleged that between 2022 and 2023, or anytime incidental thereto, as school principal, you contravened the school finance policy in that you authorised payments into personal bank accounts of staff and SGB members for the payments of service providers, whilst you knew or ought to have known that it was wrong to do so. Your action constitutes misconduct.
11.6. According to Item 7 of the Code and the ELRC guidelines on Misconduct Arbitration, the first consideration regarding the substantive fairness of a dismissal requires a factual determination as to whether or not the employee actually contravened a rule or standard regulating conduct in the workplace. In Sidumo and another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd & Others [2007] 28 ILJ 2405 (CC), [2—7] 12 BLLR 1-97 (CC)the Court held that in arriving at a decision, the Commissioner is not required to defer to the decision of the employer but that it should consider all the relevant factors and circumstances. Amongst the factors relevant to the determination of fairness are:

• The importance of the rule that was breached
• The reasons for establishing the rule including its reasonableness
• The harm caused by the employees conduct
• The impact that it had on the trust relationship.
• The effect of setting a precedent
• The reasons why the employer imposed the sanction of dismissal
• The basis of the employee’s challenge to the dismissal

11.7. The central issue in Allegation 3. is whether the Applicant, in signing a five-year solar energy rental agreement with Custom Capital Finance for an amount of R984 630.00, acted without proper authority, failed to comply with the applicable procurement procedures, and thereby committed misconduct in relation to fruitless and wasteful expenditure. The evidence must be assessed holistically, having regard to the testimony of the Respondent’s witnesses, the Applicant’s explanation, the evidence of Mr Naidoo, the documentary evidence, and the probabilities arising from the facts.
11.8. The Respondent’s case, as presented by Mr Mandlazi, was that the Applicant, as Principal and ex-officio member of the School Governing Body (SGB), was responsible for advising the SGB on policies and regulations but was not authorised to conclude a contract of this nature on behalf of the SGB without its approval. He testified that the SGB was the body authorised to enter into agreements with service providers and that the Applicant’s signature on the five-year solar energy agreement was unlawful, particularly because the contract extended beyond the three-year term of the SGB.
11.9. The Applicant, however, denied that she acted unilaterally. Her evidence was that the SGB had authorised the Finance Committee (FINCOM), comprising the Principal, Treasurer and Chairperson, to proceed with the solar project in accordance with the applicable procurement procedures. She explained that, on the day she signed the agreement, she was called from her classroom during an examination period and found the Treasurer, the Chairperson and Mr Naidoo in her office. She was briefed on the contract and signed it on the understanding that the other members would also sign. She was subsequently surprised to discover that they had not done so.
11.10. The Applicant’s version received some support from Mr Mathokoza, who testified that the SGB had authorised FINCOM to proceed with the solar project. However, his evidence, as presented, does not conclusively establish the scope of that authorisation, particularly whether FINCOM was authorised merely to investigate and procure the solar system or whether it was expressly authorised to approve the final contractual terms and bind the school to a five-year rental agreement.
11.11. The Applicant’s explanation that she expected the Treasurer and Chairperson to sign the agreement is relevant to determining whether she deliberately acted contrary to the SGB’s wishes. Nevertheless, that explanation does not, by itself, establish that she had authority to sign the contract on behalf of the school. Her reliance on the presence of the other FINCOM members required further examination, particularly because Mr Naidoo conceded that neither the Treasurer nor the Chairperson signed the contract.
11.12. The evidence also raises a question concerning the reliability of the Applicant’s understanding of the transaction. If the contract was intended to bind the school for five years, it would reasonably be expected that the person signing on behalf of the school would establish that the necessary approvals had been obtained and that the other required signatories had executed the agreement. The Applicant’s failure to ensure that the contractual formalities were completed constitutes negligence or a failure to exercise appropriate care, the applicable delegations, and the circumstances in which the agreement was presented to her.
11.13. In Stellenbosch Farmers’ Winery Group Ltd and Another v Martell et Cie and Others 2003 (1) SA 11 (SCA), the Supreme Court of Appeal explained that, where factual disputes arise, the court must evaluate the credibility of witnesses, the reliability of their evidence and the probabilities of the competing versions. Applying this approach, the Applicant’s version cannot be accepted merely because she testified that FINCOM had been authorised. Equally, the Respondent’s version cannot be accepted solely because the other witnesses disputed her authority. The documentary record and the surrounding circumstances must be considered together.
11.14. Mr Naidoo’s evidence is particularly important because he was the representative of the service provider and was directly involved in the conclusion of the agreement. His evidence confirmed several material aspects of the Respondent’s case.
11.15. First, Mr Naidoo confirmed that the Applicant was known to him from her previous school and that she contacted him to assist Sandown High School with a crisis involving non-functional equipment He further testified that he had between eight and ten rental contracts with the school and that he was the preferred service provider because of the historical relationship.
11.16. This evidence raises a legitimate concern regarding the process through which the service provider was selected. A pre-existing relationship with a service provider does not, in itself, establish misconduct. However, such a relationship does not exempt a school from complying with its procurement policy or the applicable requirements for obtaining quotations, evaluating competing offers and demonstrating value for money.
11.17. Moreover, Mr Naidoo’s evidence does not conclusively corroborate the Applicant’s version that the other FINCOM members had agreed to sign the contract. It establishes their alleged presence, but not necessarily their approval of the final agreement or their understanding of its material terms.
11.18. Third, Mr Naidoo testified that most of the school’s contracts with his company were for five years because of affordability considerations. This explanation may account for the service provider’s preference for long-term rental arrangements, but it does not establish that the particular agreement was financially advantageous to the school or that the Applicant was authorised to conclude it.
11.19. The fact that a five-year arrangement was common in the school’s dealings with the service provider does not, on its own, establish that the agreement complied with the school’s procurement policy or that the terms were reasonable.
11.20. Nevertheless, the failure to read a contract must be assessed in context. It supports a finding of negligence or inadequate care, but it does not automatically establish dishonesty, deliberate wrongdoing, or the commission of every form of misconduct alleged. The precise charge and the applicable standard of conduct remain decisive.
11.21. The Respondent’s evidence was that the school did not follow the prescribed procurement procedures when acquiring the solar system. Mr Mandlazi testified that there was no evidence that quotations had been obtained in accordance with the school’s finance policy. Ms Thanjekwayo corroborated this evidence, stating that she had examined the SGB minutes and that the records did not demonstrate compliance with the procurement procedures. She further testified that there were no supporting source documents.
11.22. The evidence of Mr Naidoo that he was the preferred service provider because of the historical relationship with the school reinforces the need to establish whether a competitive procurement process was followed. The historical relationship alone does not prove that the appointment was improper, but neither does it constitute proof that the appointment was properly made.
11.23. The relevant documentary evidence would include, the SGB resolution authorising the project, the minutes of FINCOM meetings, any quotations or comparative assessments, and the final agreement with its addenda. The absence of these records supports a finding that the procurement process was irregular.
11.24. Accordingly, if the applicable policy required quotations and the Respondent has established that none were obtained, the evidence supports a finding of non-compliance with procurement procedures.
11.25. This evidence requires a distinction between irregular expenditure and fruitless and wasteful expenditure. An expenditure may be incurred in breach of procurement procedures without necessarily being expenditure made in vain. Conversely, expenditure may be wasteful where reasonable care would have prevented it, even if the school received some benefit from the transaction.
11.26. The definition of fruitless and wasteful expenditure in section 1 of the Municipal Finance Management Act 56 of 2003, for example, is expenditure made in vain that could have been avoided had reasonable care been exercised. That definition applies within its statutory context and should not automatically be treated as the governing provision for a public school. The applicable legal and financial framework for the school must first be identified.
11.27. 4.1 The cost of the agreement and the 15% annual escalation
11.28. Mr Mandlazi testified that the contract amount was excessive because of the annual escalation of 15%. He stated that the investigators benchmarked the arrangement against two other companies and found prices of approximately R200.000 to R219.000.
11.29. This is a material evidentiary gap. Before the comparison can support a finding that the contract was excessive, the nature and scope of the comparison must be established. The competing quotations would need to be sufficiently comparable in respect of system capacity, installation costs, equipment quality, maintenance, warranties, insurance, rental duration, and other contractual obligations.
11.30. Mr Mandlazi testified that the school had a surplus in its investment account and could have purchased the solar system in cash. If supported by the school’s financial statements and bank records, this evidence is relevant to whether the rental arrangement was necessary and economically prudent.
11.31. The availability of sufficient funds could have enabled the school to compare the cost of an outright purchase with the total cost of renting the system over five years. Such a comparison would have provided an objective basis for determining which option offered better value for money.
11.32. Nevertheless, the existence of a surplus does not automatically mean that the school should have purchased the system outright. The school may have had legitimate reasons to preserve its reserves, manage liquidity or prefer a rental arrangement that included maintenance or other services. Those considerations would, however, need to be supported by evidence.
11.33. The difficulty for the Applicant is that the evidence presented does not indicate that a documented financial comparison was conducted before the agreement was signed. In the absence of such an assessment, the Respondent’s concern that the school entered into a costly arrangement without adequately considering alternatives carries weight.
11.34. The Applicant’s response was that the system reduced the school’s electricity bill and benefited learners. This is relevant evidence because it demonstrates that the school received a benefit from the installation, rather than receiving nothing in return for the expenditure.
11.35. Ms Seemela’s evidence that the system covered only the administrative block is also relevant to the assessment of its utility and the proportionality of its cost. However, the fact that the system served only one block does not, without further evidence, establish that it was unnecessary or uneconomical.
11.36. The central question is whether the benefits obtained justified the contractual cost and risks. A rental arrangement is not inherently wasteful merely because ownership does not pass to the school. Leasing may be financially reasonable in appropriate circumstances. Equally, a reduction in the electricity bill does not, by itself, establish that the school obtained value for money.
11.37. In Mbambisa and Others v Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality [2024] ZASCA 151, the Supreme Court of Appeal considered the meaning and consequences of unauthorised, irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure in the municipal-finance context. The judgment distinguishes the classification of expenditure from the question of actual loss or damage. It is important to recognise, however, that this decision concerned the Municipal Finance Management Act and municipal expenditure; it should not be applied as if it automatically governs a public school’s finances.
11.38. The relevant principle for the present factual assessment is that the receipt of some benefit does not, by itself, establish that the financial decision was properly authorised or that the expenditure was economically justified. Equally, the mere existence of a contractual irregularity does not automatically establish that the expenditure was made in vain.
11.39. On the evidence currently available, the Respondent has established a substantial basis for questioning the financial prudence of the agreement. However, a definitive finding that the entire amount of R984 630.00 constituted fruitless and wasteful expenditure would require a clearer analysis of the contract’s actual financial consequences and the benefit obtained by the school.
11.40. The minutes of the relevant SGB meetings are therefore central to the determination of this allegation. If the minutes demonstrate that FINCOM was authorised only to investigate the project or obtain quotations, the Applicant’s reliance on that resolution would be insufficient to establish authority to sign the final agreement. If, on the other hand, the minutes expressly authorised FINCOM to conclude the transaction, the scope of that authorisation would still have to be examined against the actual terms of the agreement and the school’s financial policies.
11.41. In Stellenbosch Farmers’ Winery Group Ltd v Martell & Cie 2003 (1) SA 11 (SCA), the court emphasised that conflicting versions must be evaluated by considering credibility, reliability, and probabilities together. The evidence of Mr Mathokoza must therefore be weighed against the evidence of Mr Mandlazi, Ms Thanjekwayo, Ms Seemela and Mr Naidoo, as well as the contemporaneous documents.
11.42. The fact that several witnesses supported the Respondent’s version is relevant, but the number of witnesses is not determinative. The quality of their evidence, their personal knowledge of the relevant events and the consistency of their accounts with the documentary record remain important.
11.43. Whether the Applicant exercised reasonable care in considering the duration, cost, and material terms of the agreement.
11.44. Whether the agreement was financially justifiable and whether the evidence establishes fruitless and wasteful expenditure, as distinct from procedural irregularity.
11.45. Whether the Applicant’s conduct satisfies the precise elements of the misconduct alleged.
11.46. These questions should be answered separately. A finding that procurement procedures were not followed does not automatically establish that the entire contractual amount was fruitless and wasteful expenditure. Similarly, a finding that the Applicant failed to exercise reasonable care does not, without more, establish that she deliberately acted without authority.
11.47. Having considered the evidence presented, the Respondent’s version is supported by several material features of the case. Mr Mandlazi testified that the Applicant signed a five-year solar rental agreement without proper authorisation and that the transaction was financially disadvantageous to the school. Ms Thanjekwayo corroborated the absence of an SGB resolution authorising the Applicant to sign the contract and testified that the relevant minutes and records did not demonstrate compliance with procurement procedures. Mr Naidoo, the service provider, made important concessions concerning the use of an old addendum and the absence of signatures by the Treasurer and Chairperson.
11.48. These concessions are particularly significant because they arise from the evidence of the person who prepared or presented the transaction, rather than solely from the Respondent’s witnesses.
11.49. The Applicant’s version that FINCOM had been authorised to proceed with the solar project received some support from Mr Mathokoza. Her explanation that she signed the contract in haste during an examination period may also explain why she did not scrutinise its terms. However, neither explanation conclusively establishes that she was authorised to sign the final agreement or that the contractual terms were properly approved by the SGB.
11.50. The Applicant’s failure to read the agreement before signing it is a serious concern. A Principal who signs a substantial financial agreement on behalf of a school is expected to exercise reasonable care, particularly where the agreement imposes long-term financial obligations. The circumstances described by the Applicant may be relevant to the degree of culpability, but they do not eliminate the need for proper scrutiny and authorisation.
11.51. At the same time, the Applicant’s evidence that the solar system reduced the electricity bill must be considered however the benefit derived from the installation does not cure any unauthorised contracting or procurement irregularity.
11.52. Having considered the evidence presented by both parties, I find that the allegation is substantiated, on the basis that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that she had authorisation to conclude the solar rental agreement on behalf of the school.
11.53. The evidence establishes that the Applicant signed a solar rental agreement with the service provider on 27 September 2022, for a period of 60 months and an approximate total value of R984,630. Given the duration and financial implications of the agreement, it was incumbent on the Applicant to ensure that the necessary approval had been obtained before committing the school to the contractual arrangement.
11.54. The Applicant sought to justify her conduct by relying on the fact that members of the Finance Committee (FINCOM) were present when she signed the agreement. However, she conceded that she did not engage with those members or discuss the agreement with them before signing it. Their presence at the time of signature does not, without further evidence, establish that they considered or approved the agreement, or that they authorised the Applicant to conclude it on the school’s behalf. I therefore do not accept their presence as sufficient proof of FINCOM approval.

11.55. I have considered the evidence of the service provider, including its explanation that it had previously entered into similar rental arrangements with school and that such agreements were commonly signed by principal. However, the fact that the service provider had entered into similar arrangements with other schools does not establish that the Applicant possessed the necessary authority in this particular instance. The authority to bind the school had to arise from the applicable governance arrangements and approvals, rather than from the service provider’s customary practice.
11.56. In resolving the factual dispute, I have applied the approach in Stellenbosch Farmers’ Winery Group Ltd and Another v Martell et Cie and Others 2003 (1) SA 11 (SCA), by considering the evidence as a whole and assessing the probabilities arising from the established facts. The Applicant’s reliance on the presence of FINCOM members is insufficient to overcome the absence of evidence that the agreement was discussed and approved before she signed it.
11.57. Accordingly, I find that the Applicant signed a substantial, long-term financial agreement without the requisite approval and authority been obtained. Her conduct reflects a failure to ensure that the appropriate governance procedures were followed before committing the school to the agreement.
11.58. Having considered the totality of the evidence, I find that the Respondent has discharged the onus of proving the allegation on a balance of probabilities.

13. ALLEGATION 7

13.1. The central issue under this allegation is whether the Applicant, in her capacity as Principal, failed to ensure that school expenditure was supported by the required invoices, requisitions and other source documents, and whether payments were made in circumstances that undermined proper financial accountability. A further issue is whether the evidence establishes that the Applicant was responsible for the alleged irregularities, having regard to her explanation that supporting documents existed but were removed from the school during the investigation.
13.2. Mr. Mandlazi testified that Circular 13 of 2000, appearing at pages 61–63 of Exhibit A, sets out the Principal’s responsibilities in relation to advising and supporting the School Governing Body (SGB), and that paragraph 2.3.17 prohibits payments from being made without the requisite invoice and requisition. He further testified that payment procedures require three signatories and that the Principal is expected to assist the SGB in maintaining records in accordance with the South African Schools Act (SASA) and the applicable financial procedures.
13.3. According to Mr. Mandlazi, during the investigation the Applicant was asked to provide outstanding documents but failed to do so. The investigation consequently found that various transactions had been processed without the necessary supporting source documents.
13.4. This evidence, if accepted, is material because invoices, requisitions and payment records are fundamental financial controls. They provide a means of verifying that goods or services were supplied, that expenditure was authorised, that the amount paid was correct, and that payment was made to the proper recipient. The absence of such documentation may therefore constitute a serious failure of financial administration and accountability, particularly where public funds are involved.
13.5. The fact that the Applicant was appointed or seconded to the school as a capable person does not, on its own, establish misconduct. However, her position as Principal is relevant when determining the duties reasonably expected of her and whether she exercised the care and oversight required in managing school finances.
13.6. Mr. Mandlazi’s evidence was materially corroborated by Ms. Thanjekwayo, the bookkeeper, who testified that she found the school’s financial records in disarray when she assumed her duties. She explained that she struggled to reconstruct the transactions because the necessary source documents were missing. She further testified that payments totalling R574,668.39 had been made to various persons without invoices.
13.7. Ms. Thanjekwayo’s evidence is significant because her work with the financial records gave her a practical basis for identifying gaps in the documentation. Her evidence also explains why those gaps mattered without supporting documents, it becomes difficult to establish whether the correct person was paid, whether the amount was accurate, and whether the money was used for the intended purpose.
13.8. The Applicant’s responsibilities must be assessed in light of section 16A of the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996 (SASA). Section 16A(1)(a) provides that the Principal represents the Head of Department (HOD) in the School Governing Body (SGB) when acting in an official capacity. Section 16A(2)(a)(v) and (vi) expressly require the Principal, in undertaking the professional management of a public school, to ensure the safekeeping of school records and the implementation of policy and legislation. Section 16A(2)(f) requires the Principal to inform the SGB about policy and legislation. Of particular relevance to this allegation, section 16A(2)(h) requires the Principal to assist the SGB with the management of school funds, while section 16A(2)(i) requires the Principal to take all reasonable steps to prevent financial maladministration or mismanagement by a staff member or the SGB. These provisions are reflected in the amended Act.
13.9. These statutory duties are directly relevant to the allegation that payments were processed without the prescribed invoices and requisitions, that payments were made to persons other than the intended service providers, and that the school’s financial records were inadequate to account for substantial expenditure.
13.10. The Applicant was not automatically responsible for every irregular transaction merely because she occupied the position of Principal. However, her statutory responsibilities required her to take reasonable steps to ensure that the school’s financial administration was properly managed, that the applicable financial procedures were observed, and that school records were safeguarded. The evidence must therefore establish not only those irregularities occurred, but also that the Applicant’s own conduct or failure to exercise the required oversight constituted the misconduct alleged.
13.11. Mr. Mandlazi testified that Circular 13 of 2000 required the Principal to advise and support the SGB in complying with the applicable legislation and financial procedures. He further testified that payments required the prescribed signatories and that the Applicant was asked to provide outstanding financial documents during the investigation but failed to do so.
13.12. His evidence was corroborated in material respects by Ms. Thanjekwayo, the bookkeeper, who testified that she found the financial records in disarray when she assumed her duties. She explained that she struggled to reconstruct the transactions because the required source documents were missing. She identified payments totalling R574,668.39 which, according to her evidence, had been made without invoices.
13.13. The importance of this evidence lies not merely in the absence of paperwork. Without invoices, requisitions, and appropriate payment records, it becomes difficult to establish whether expenditure was authorised, whether the goods or services were supplied, whether the correct amount was paid, and whether the money reached the intended beneficiary. The absence of these records undermines the accountability expected in the administration of public-school funds.
13.14. Ms. Thanjekwayo also identified particular transactions that strengthened the Respondent’s case. These included payments relating to Link Branding that were allegedly made to accounts other than those of the intended beneficiaries; two payments of R12,750.00 that appeared to relate to the donation of a cow to the family of the late SGB Chairperson; payments intended for Khokhela and Moremo Violin that were allegedly made into the SGB Treasurer’s account; and R57,870.00 paid to Karee Krans for a matric camp that was reportedly cancelled without the money being refunded.
13.15. These transactions raise serious concerns about the adequacy of the school’s financial controls. They also demonstrate why it was necessary for the Applicant, within the scope of her duties, to ensure that the transactions were supported by proper documentation and that the school’s funds could be accounted for.
13.16. The evidence does not, however, establish automatically that every identified transaction resulted in a financial loss, that every payment was duplicated, or that the Applicant personally received or misappropriated any money. Those conclusions would require transaction-specific evidence. For purposes of this allegation, the principal issue is whether the Applicant failed to ensure compliance with the prescribed financial and record-keeping requirements.
13.17. The Applicant denied that the transactions had been processed without invoices. She maintained that invoices existed but that documents had been removed from the school during the investigation and had not been returned. She also explained that where a service provider did not have a bank account, payment was sometimes made to a staff member or SGB member who would then pay the service provider or make a purchase on behalf of the school.
13.18. The Applicant’s explanation that staff or SGB members sometimes acted as intermediaries is not inherently improbable. However, the explanation does not, by itself, establish that the particular transactions identified by Ms. Thanjekwayo were properly authorised or accounted for. Where a payment was made to a person other than the intended service provider, it would reasonably be expected that there would be documentary evidence showing the purpose of the payment, the authority for the arrangement, the goods or services purchased and, where applicable, proof that the intended supplier received the money.
13.19. The Applicant’s assertion that invoices were there. However, on the evidence summarised, there is no independent corroboration that the relevant invoices existed for each disputed transaction or that the documents were removed and not returned. The version was also not put to Ms. Thanjekwayo, who was the witness best placed to address the condition of the books and her attempts to reconstruct the records from bank statements.
13.20. The failure to put this version to Ms. Thanjekwayo is a material weakness in the Applicant’s case because it deprived the witness of an opportunity to respond to the allegation that documents had been removed. It does not automatically render the Applicant’s version false, but it reduces the weight that can reasonably be attached to that explanation in the absence of other supporting evidence.
13.21. Mr. Mathokoza testified that the transactions he conducted with the finance office were supported by invoices and requisitions. His evidence lends some support to the proposition that invoices and requisitions were used in the school’s financial processes. However, he was not working in the finance office and could not speak authoritatively about all the transactions under investigation. His evidence therefore does not resolve the specific deficiencies identified by Ms. Thanjekwayo.
13.22. The contradictions are consequently not evenly balanced. The Applicant offered a general explanation for how payments were sometimes made and why documents were allegedly missing, whereas Ms. Thanjekwayo identified particular transactions and explained the deficiencies she encountered when examining the school’s records. The latter evidence is more directly connected to the transactions in dispute.
13.23. In Stellenbosch Farmers’ Winery Group Ltd and Another v Martell et Cie and Others 2003 (1) SA 11 (SCA) at paragraph 5, the Supreme Court of Appeal held that, when resolving factual disputes, a decision-maker must consider the credibility of the witnesses, their reliability, and the probabilities of the competing versions. The decision-maker must evaluate the evidence as a whole and determine whether the party bearing the onus has discharged it.
13.24. Applying that approach, the Respondent’s version is supported by the evidence of two witnesses, the bookkeeper’s direct examination of the financial records, and the specific transactions identified during the investigation. The Applicant’s denial is weakened by the absence, on the evidence presented, of corroboration that the invoices existed for the disputed payments or that the records were removed during the investigation. Mr. Mathokoza’s evidence does not resolve these specific deficiencies.
13.25. The evidence that the financial records were in disarray, that numerous transactions could not be verified through the required supporting documents, and that payments were made to persons other than the intended suppliers supports the inference that the school’s financial controls and record-keeping were not adequately maintained. Given the Applicant’s statutory responsibilities under section 16A of SASA, the failure to ensure that the school’s financial transactions were properly documented and capable of verification is relevant to her accountability as Principal.
13.26. This conclusion is not based simply on the fact that the Applicant was the Principal. It rests on the combined evidence concerning the state of the records, the identified transactions, her statutory duties, and the insufficiently substantiated explanation that the documents had been removed.
Finding on Allegation 7
13.27. Having considered the evidence as a whole, I find that the Respondent has established, on a balance of probabilities, that the required financial documentation was not available to support the disputed transactions and that the school’s financial record-keeping and payment controls were deficient. The Applicant’s general denial and her explanation that the documents were removed do not adequately rebut the specific evidence of Ms. Thanjekwayo, particularly in the absence of corroborating evidence and given that the explanation was not put to that witness.
13.28. In light of the Applicant’s duties under section 16A(2)(a)(v) and (vi), section 16A(2)(f), and, in particular, section 16A(2)(h) and (i) of SASA, I find that the evidence supports a finding that she failed to exercise the required oversight to ensure that the school’s financial transactions were properly documented and managed in accordance with the applicable financial procedures.
13.29. Accordingly, on the evidence summarised, Allegation 7 is established on a balance of probabilities, insofar as it alleges a failure to ensure compliance with the required financial documentation, record-keeping, and accountability procedures.

14. ALLEGATION 8
    14.1. The central question is whether the Respondent proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the Applicant unlawfully authorised or permitted payments totalling R124,495.05 into the personal bank accounts of staff members and School Governing Body (SGB) members, in breach of an applicable school finance policy, and whether the Applicant was culpable for doing so.
    14.2. I have considered the evidence concerning the 13 transactions paid into the personal bank accounts of staff members and SGB members, including the Treasurer, the Secretary, and the Principal amongst others. I have also considered the Applicant’s challenge to the effective date of the Sandown High School finance policy and the evidence concerning the absence of source documents.
    14.3. The evidence establishes that the transactions occurred over a period during which different versions of the school’s finance policy were applicable. It is therefore necessary to distinguish between transactions processed on or after 1 February 2023 and those processed before that date.
    14.4. In respect of transactions processed on or after 1 February 2023, to the extent that the Respondent has established that the policy was validly approved and binding from that date, the Applicant’s authorisation of payments contrary to the prohibition against direct payments into personal accounts would constitute a breach of the applicable financial-control requirements. Those transactions include two transactions on the 11th of August 2023 to Ink Link for the amount of R5008.00 deposited into the Principals personal account and the other into the District office Account, 17th of February 2023 paid to Mkandawire an amount of R12 750.00, 11th of August 2023 to Moremo Violin an amount of R4 980.00, 29th of March 2023 to the Principal an amount of R10 000.00, 13th of April 2023 Morningside Hardware paid into the account of Mkandawire an amount of R3 307.00
    14.5. The fact that the document was signed on 30 March 2023 does not, by itself, determine whether it could validly take effect from an earlier date. The relevant consideration is whether the policy was duly adopted by the competent authority and whether its stated effective date was valid. The evidence concerning the drafting process and the status of the document must therefore be considered alongside the available approval records.
    14.6. In respect of transactions processed before 1 February 2023, the position is different. The previous finance policy did not expressly prohibit direct payments into the personal bank accounts of staff members and SGB members. The Applicant cannot therefore be found guilty of contravening that specific prohibition in respect of earlier transactions merely by applying the later policy retrospectively.
    14.7. However, the absence of an express prohibition in the previous policy does not necessarily establish that the earlier transactions were lawful. The administration of public-school funds remains subject to applicable statutory obligations and departmental financial-control requirements.
    14.8. A further consideration is that none of the 13 transactions was supported by source documents. Mr Mandlazi testified that, without invoices or other supporting records, he could not say with certainty whether the funds were used for their intended purposes. The Applicant maintained that the money was used exclusively for legitimate school activities, but that explanation was not substantiated by the source documents ordinarily required to verify expenditure.
    14.9. I accept that the absence of source documents does not, on its own, prove that the funds were misappropriated or that the Applicant personally benefited from the payments. Nevertheless, the inability to verify the purpose and use of the funds raises a serious concern regarding financial accountability. Where the Applicant authorised the transactions and was responsible for ensuring that the expenditure was properly recorded and supported, the absence of the required records may establish a failure to discharge her financial responsibilities.
    14.10. I have also considered the evidence concerning the missing financial records. Ms Thanjekwayo testified that she experienced difficulties reconstructing the school’s financial records because source documents were missing when she commenced her duties. Mr Mathokoza described the circumstances in which the outgoing SGB prepared documents for handover and subsequently became aware that the files were missing. Nevertheless, the later disappearance of records does not, without more, establish that the original transactions were properly documented or that the Applicant discharged her responsibilities when authorising the payments.
    14.11. Applying the approach in Stellenbosch Farmers’ Winery Group Ltd and Another v Martell et Cie and Others 2003 (1) SA 11 (SCA), I have assessed the credibility and reliability of the witnesses together with the probabilities arising from the evidence as a whole.
    14.12. My finding is that Allegation 8 must be determined on a transaction-specific basis. In respect of transactions processed on or after 1 February 2023, Respondent has proved that the prohibition was validly adopted and binding at the time and that the Applicant authorised the prohibited payments. In respect of transactions processed before that date, guilt cannot be based solely on the prohibition introduced by the later policy.
    14.13. I accordingly find the Applicant guilty of contravening the specific prohibition against direct payments into personal accounts confined to those transactions as stated in 14.4 above for which the Respondent proves that the prohibition was binding at the relevant time. I make no finding of personal enrichment or misappropriation in the absence of sufficient evidence to support such a conclusion.
    14.14. 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.
    14.15. Having considered the totality of the evidence, I find that the Respondent has discharged the onus of proving the allegation on a balance of probabilities.
15. PROCEDURAL ISSUE: DELAY IN INSTITUTING DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

15.1. Stokwe v Member of the Executive Council: Department of Education, Eastern Cape, and Others [2018] ZACC 3. The Constitutional Court confirmed the importance of prompt and fair disciplinary proceedings, particularly in the context of the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998. It found that excessive delay in finalising the disciplinary process, coupled with a failure to provide adequate reasons for dismissal, rendered the dismissal procedurally unfair.
15.2. It is common cause that the initial investigation was completed in December 2023 and that approximately nine months elapsed before the Applicant was charged.
15.3. A period of nine months is sufficiently substantial to require an explanation. The Respondent cannot avoid scrutiny merely by asserting that there is no fixed statutory period within which charges must be instituted. The requirement of promptness remains relevant even where no prescribed deadline applies.
15.4. However, the relevant period should not be assessed in isolation. The Respondent explained that, after completing the initial investigation, it commissioned attorneys to investigate the school’s contracts. The Applicant was charged after that investigation had been completed and the report received and considered.
15.5. The question is therefore whether the further investigation was a legitimate continuation of the enquiry into the alleged financial misconduct or whether it unnecessarily delayed the institution of disciplinary proceedings.
15.6. Having considered the parties’ submissions and the applicable legal principles, I find that the Applicant has not established, on the evidence presently described, that the nine-month delay rendered the disciplinary proceedings procedurally unfair.
15.7. The delay was substantial and required an explanation. The Respondent acknowledged the period and explained that, following completion of the initial investigation in December 2023, a further investigation into the school’s contracts was undertaken by attorneys. The Applicant was charged after the Respondent received and considered their report.
15.8. Given the financial nature of the allegations and the need to establish the extent of the school’s financial exposure, this explanation is reasonably capable of justifying further investigation before charges were instituted. The Respondent was entitled to ensure that the charges were informed by a sufficiently complete investigation.
15.9. I have also considered the Applicant’s contention that the delay prejudiced her preparation. However, on the facts presented, no specific prejudice has been demonstrated, such as the unavailability of a material witness, the loss of relevant evidence attributable to the delay, or an identifiable impairment of her ability to answer the charges.
15.10. Applying the principles in Stokwe, Moroenyane and Sanderson, the delay must be assessed holistically rather than treated as automatically fatal to the disciplinary proceedings. The further investigation provides a plausible explanation, and the evidence presently described does not establish that the Applicant’s defence was materially compromised.
15.11. I accordingly find that the procedural objection based on the nine-month delay is not substantiated on the evidence presented

16. Having considered all the evidence, I make the following finding:
    16.1. The evidence establishes serious shortcomings in the Applicants discharge of her responsibilities relating to financial governance, authorisation, and accountability at the school.
    16.2. The Respondent has proven Allegations 3,7 and 8 on a balance of probabilities and the Applicant Mrs Edith Mamosebo committed misconduct by failing to establish proper authorisation and compliance with the required approval processes, failing to ensure that transactions were adequately supported and accounted for and failing to advise the SGB against payments into staff and SGB members personal accounts and ensuring adequate financial controls.

16.3. I accordingly make the following award

17 AWARD

17.1. I find the dismissal of the Applicant MRS EDITH MAMOSEBO by the Respondent The Department of Education Gauteng was fair and appropriate.
17.2. This application is dismissed.

GCINA MAFANI
Arbitrator 28 OCTOBER 2026
ELRC 1361-25-26GP