29 May 2025 – ELRC1018-24/25MP

Panellist: Asnath Sedibane
Case No: ELRC1018-24/25MP
Date of Award: 28 May 2025

In the ARBITRATION between:

Ndlovu, Bongumusa Dulcet
(Union / Applicant)
And

Ehlanzeni TVET College
(Respondent)

Union/Applicant’s representative: Ms Noziqhamu Mgidi
Union/Applicant’s address: Telephone:
Telefax:
Email:

Respondent’s representative: Mr Sifiso Malinga
Respondent’s address:

Telephone:
Telefax:
Email:

DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

The arbitration hearing between Mr Bongumusa Dulcet Ndlovu and the Ehlanzeni TVET College was held under the auspices of the Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC), on 10 March 2023, at the Respondent’s Nelspruit premises and again virtually via Microsoft Teams on 14/04/2025 and on 07 May 2025.
The applicant, Mr Bongumusa Dulcet Ndlovu attended the process, and he was represented by Ms Noziqhamu Mgidi, a fellow employee. The respondent, Ehlanzeni TVET College was represented by Mr Sifiso Malinga, its Employee Relations Official.
The process was manually and digitally recorded.
The parties exchanged bundles of documents, the Respondent’s bundles were marked as bundle “R” and the applicant’s bundle was marked as bundle “A”. It was agreed between the parties and the Panelist that the parties will submit their closing arguments in writing by no later than 14 May 2025. I have received the closing arguments, and I have taken these into consideration when making this award.
INTERLOCUTORY MATTERS
Citation of the Respondent
The respondent submitted that the applicant was appointed by the Ehlanzeni TVET College Council and not the Department of Higher Education and Training. Only Ehlanzeni TVET College should have been cited as the only respondent in this matter, not the Department.
The applicant confirmed that he was employed by Ehlanzeni TVET College and not the Department of Higher Education and Training.
The respondent in this matter should therefore have been cited as he made an application for an order that the respondent must provide the recording of the internal disciplinary hearing and that the respondent was in breach of clause 17.6 of Part C of the ELRC Constitution. Ruling
After considering both parties’ submissions, I ruled that the respondent’s citation be amended to Ehlanzeni TVET College. Application to supplement bundle of documents
At the start of the process on 14 April 2025, the respondent made an application to supplement its bundle of documents. It was submitted that the documents that the respondent sought to add to the bundle were to prove that the extensions of the applicant’s contract were emailed to the Campus by HR.
The applicant opposed the application and submitted that if the information was important, it would have been exchanged in the beginning of the arbitration. It was questionable why it was not disclosed earlier.
Ruling
I ruled against supplementing the respondent’s bundle. The applicant had already finished his testimony if the documents were to be allowed, it would prejudice the applicant in that he would not be in a position to testify regarding the documents. This would not be in the interest of justice.
ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
I was required to determine whether the applicant was dismissed by the respondent, and if so, whether the dismissal was procedurally and substantively fair.
BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE
The applicant, Mr. Bongumusa Dulcet Ndlovu was employed as a PL 1 Lecturer by the respondent, Ehlanzeni TVET College, at the Mlumati Campus. He was appointed on a fixed-term contract that commenced on 16 September 2020. His employment was terminated on 31 December 2024, and he was earning a monthly basic salary in the amount of R38, 088-74 at the time of the termination of his contract. The applicant received a notice of termination on 27 November 2024, dated 18 November 2024.
The following issues were recorded as issues in dispute between the parties:
14.1 Whether the applicant was dismissed by the respondent and if the dismissal was procedurally and substantively fair.
14.2 Whether the applicant’s post is still in existence.
14.3 Whether the applicant was provided with fixed-term contracts on a regular basis by the respondent.
SURVEY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS
THE APPLICANT’S CASE:
The applicant, Mr Bongumusa Dulcet Ndlovu’s testimony under oath was briefly as follows:
He was employed by the respondent as a Lecturer at Mlumati Campus with effect from 16 September 2020 and he taught plumbing, N1 and N2, Building Administration, N4 to N6 and Building and Structural Construction, N4 to N6. His qualifications include a Diploma in Building, a B-Tech in Quantity Surveying and a Trade qualification in Plumbing.
When Mr Mona who was a permanent employee resigned in September 2024, he was requested to take over his subjects in NCV. It was said that he stood a better chance of being permanent as Nated was going to be phased out. He worked long hours under NCV as he had to make students write tests afresh, help them with POE’s and practicals and had to mark scripts. Mr Mona’s work was not up to date. He sometimes knocked off around 6 or 7pm even though the knock off time was 4pm. The subjects he had taught in Nated were still offered at the campus and someone else was teaching them.
He was given a notice of termination on 27 November 2024, the notice was dated 18 November 2024. His last day of work was 12 December 2024. The last time he had received a contract from the College was in January 2021 when he was given a 12-month contract. When he inquired about a new contract in 2022, he was told that he should not worry as his contract was ongoing and his job was secured. Before then he had signed a 4-month contract in 2020 when he started at the College. He was never given copies of the contracts.
He was not called to a meeting before he was given the termination notice and it was never explained to him why he was being dismissed. There were no complaints about him but instead he was praised by the HoD of Engineering and Design for his work. That had encouraged him to work harder. He had improved a lot of things including results.
He has no other source of income, and he had made a lot of financial commitments as the respondent had given him a reasonable expectation that he would be permanently employed. He has six siblings and is paying one of the siblings’ university fees. His parents are pensioners. He recently got married. He is constantly under stress due to the dismissal.
Under cross-examination, Mr Ndlovu testified that the number of students in Civil Engineering fluctuated. He conceded that N1 and N2 of plumbing had been phased out. He had about 30 students per class in NCV. He could not confirm the number of students he had in Nated, and they were about 20. He did not have proof of the numbers.
He had been requested by Mr Chikodime about taking over Mr Mona’s classes and the possibility of him being permanently employed as Mr Mona was permanent. They were addressed in a meeting about some Lecturer’s poor performance, that’s where he got the picture that Mr Mona was performing badly. He disputed that the phasing out of N1 to N3 in Nated posed a great possibility of his contract not being renewed, he contended that N4 to N6 were currently still being offered at the Campus. He confirmed that he was not given anything in writing to confirm that he was replacing Mr Mona.
He reiterated that he was not given anything in writing to confirm the extensions of his contract and that he had only signed the first contract that was given to him in 2020. He had only been informed verbally about the extensions. It was his first time to see the letters of extensions that are in the respondent’s bundle. He did not call Mr Chikodime as a witness to confirm that he had told him that his employment was secure, he did not trust that Mr Chikodime would confirm his version as he was amongst the CMT members that had told him that his contract was being terminated. Mr Chikodime is an HoD and part of the Campus Management Team (CMT).
He did not verify what Mr Chikodime told him with Mr Khumalo, the Campus Manager. Mr Khumalo was not hands on and the staff received most of the information from Mr Chikodime. He had five classes per day at NCV, at Nated the number of classes fluctuated.
It was put to Mr Ndlovu that work allocation was done by the CMT, the number of students had declined and this was a contributing factor to his contract not being renewed, the issue of non -renewal of contracts was discussed and agreed to at the labour Forum and there was consultation with relevant stakeholders. If was further put to Mr Ndlovu that he had not been dismissed but his contract had lapsed.
The applicant’s first witness, Mr Khayelihle Felix Pilson’s testimony under oath was briefly as follows:
He is a Lecturer at Mlumati Campus since September 2019. The applicant is a former colleague. He used to spend time with the applicant outside work. He was with the applicant when he received a call from the acting HoD, Mr Tshikodime, asking the applicant to replace Mr Mona in NCV. NCV Lectures knock off at 2pm and Nated Lecturers knock off at 5pm. The applicant used to knock off at 5pm with the Nated Lecturers.
Mr Tshikodime had told the applicant that he would stand a better chance of being employed permanently as Mr Mona who had resigned was permanently employed. The applicant was praised a lot in the morning meetings. There were no meetings where Policies and work procedures were explained to employees.
Under cross-examination, Mr Pilson testified that he heard a lot of Lectureres on contract saying that the feared having their contracts terminated if they testified for the applicant. He was with the applicant at his residence when he received the call from Mr Tshikodime about the offer to move to NCV and the possibility of him getting permanent employment in the position.
He does not know the process of filling a permanent post. HR was involved when he was employed.
The applicant’s second witness, Mr Amos Manikela’s testimony under oath was briefly as follows:
He is a Lecturer at Mlumati College. The applicant is his former colleague. He is a former NEHAWU secretary. When Mr Mona who was a permanent Lecturer resigned, Mr Tshikodime had called him and Mrs Lubisi, a SADTU representative, and told them that the applicant would be moved to NCV so that he could become permanent. They both agreed to the decision.
He did not have minutes of the meeting. He believes that Mr Tshikodime had called the applicant as the applicant did join NCV. Mr Tshikodime did not give the Union Representatives feedback after the first meeting.
Under cross-examination, Mr Manikela testified that he could not remember the date of the meeting with Mr Tshikodime where they were told about the applicant’s move to NCV. He did not dispute that he had submitted documents to the ELRC distancing himself from the BEC of NEHAWU.
THE RESPONDENT’S CASE:
The respondent’s first witness, Mr Sydwell Skhumbuzo Khumalo’s testimony under oath was briefly as follows:
He is the acting Campus Manager at Mlumati Campus. The applicant was employed on a fixed-term contract in report 191 which is being phased out and experienced a reduction in the number of students. The College did not renew or extend the applicant’s contract. Another reason for the non-renewal was the need for cost curtailments. When the Campus was visited by HR in September 2024, the workload of lecturers was relooked at and some of the subjects that the applicant taught was allocated to other lecturers. There was a directive from HR to reduce staff and the applicant as the only lecturer on report 191 who was on contract was affected.
Labour was engaged in the process of reducing the staff compliment. Through engagements between the Deputy Principal Academic, the Deputy Principal Corporate Services and Labour, the staff was reduced by five lecturers.
The applicant was initially employed on contract in 2020, the contract was extended through letters that were sent from HR to the Campus Manager who then gave the letters to the applicant. He always looked at contracts that were about to expire and request for their extension.
When a lecturer who was teaching engineering subjects retired in 2024, the applicant was requested to take over the subjects.
Under cross-examination, Mr Khumalo testifies that feedback meeting at the campus were held as and when necessary. He confirmed that the lecturer that had resigned and whose subjects the applicant had to take over was Mr Mona. He had first learned that the numbers in 191 would be cut a few years ago. Ehlanzeni TVET College had complied in terms of reskilling and capacitating personnel. The pace of that was not fast but workshops were accredited. The DPA did not give the College programmes to put in place. He had known that the phasing out of Nated would have a negative effect on employees.
The number of lessons were not determined by the PPN Policy but were determined by the funding grid. Ms Sibisi was brought to the campus to replace Mr Maswanganye who had some challenges. He confirmed that Ms Sibisi is the fiancé of Mr Mandlevu, a Senior Lecturer and part of the Campus Management Team (CMT). Ms Sambo was brought in, in 2021, to teach English as there was a shortage of lecturers to teach the subject. He was not aware that Ms Sibambo is related to Ms Ntimane, a Senior Lecturer.
Non-Union members received information in staff meetings, briefings, through WhatsApp groups and CMT meetings. Members of the CMT would share information with their departments. He confirmed that there was no staff meeting held at the campus in 2024. The contract periods are determined by Central Office.
The second witness for the respondent, Mr Bongani Chrsitopher Khayiyo, Deputy Principal Academic at Ehlanzeni TVET College, testified under oath as follows:
The applicant was not dismissed but his contract came to an end, and it was not renewed due to a number of reasons, including affordability. The applicant and some lecturers were paid by the college and not the DHET. The College was allocated 19 million for two months and 11 million went towards salaries. The College no longer had N1 to N3 so even if the lecturers’ contracts were renewed, they would not have classes to teach. Labour was engaged regarding the non-renewal of contracts. The Campus was asked to identify needs for the following year, and they did. Consultation sessions with unions were done in line with the terms of reference of the SOP for Labour Forums.
The College exhausted its budget in preparing for the QCTO programmes. The College started from scratch in having workshops accredited. The process was still ongoing.
Under cross-examination, Mr Khayiyo testified that the College was not allocated a budget to have the workshops accredited. He said that the College started in 2022 to have workshops accredited. It took two years to have the electrical engineering workshop at Mlumati accredited.
Campus Management communicated with employees that did not belong to Unions. The ration of 1 lecturer per 30 students is informed by the PAM document. The extensions of contracts were communicated to the applicant in advance. He does not have proof of the communication as it was done through the campus. He does not have any reason to believe that the Campus Manager did not communicate the extensions to the applicant.
The third witness for the respondent, Mr Daniel Philemon Nkuna, Assistant Director HRM &D at Ehlanzeni TVET College, testified under oath as follows:
He disputes that the applicant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent. According to his records, Mr Ndlovu was appointed on contract which had a start date and an end date which was December 2024. The applicant was not in a substantive post. A substantive post is catered for on the College’s structure. The applicant was on a fixed-term contract, employed by the College Council. The initial duration of his contract was twelve months when he started in 2022. When the first contract lapsed, the Campus Manager requested for an extension which was approved. The extension was communicated to the applicant through the Campus Manager. The extension letters were sent to the Campus Manager through email.
Extensions were not done individually but the Campus Manager would indicate the number of contracts to be extended. The reason for the non-renewal of the applicant’s contract in December 2024 was due to funds. The applicant was given proper notice of the termination. An employee on fixed-term contract cannot simply be absorbed in a substantive post, the normal recruitment processes would have to be followed. Posts on the organogram are approved by the Minister of Higher Education. He has no record of the applicant having been moved to a substantive post.
Under cross-examination, Mr Nkuna testified that employees were provided workshops on applicable policies. The applicant was appointed due to the high number of students at Mlumati Campus in 2020. He had provided the respondent’s representative with the emails that prove that the extensions of the applicant’s contract were sent to the Campus Manager at Mlumati. Mr Khumalo did not give him proof that the applicant had received the extension letters. He disputed that the extension letters were fraudulent. The expiry of the applicant’s contract was not due to new courses being introduced.
Closing arguments
In closing, the applicant submitted that the employer created a reasonable expectation that the applicant’s contract would at least continue to be renewed or be made permanent. The applicant had continued employment for consecutive years since 2020, with verbal assurance yearly that his employment was secured. The only contract that the applicant signed was the first one in 2020. The employer produced fraudulent extensions of contracts which the applicant never saw before the arbitration. The phasing out of Nated engineering courses and the introduction of QCTO courses does not justify the dismissal of the applicant and this did not affect Mlumati Campus only. The applicant was moved from Nated engineering to NCV with promises of him being permanently employed. The applicant was unfairly dismissed and prays for compensation equivalent to twelve months’ salary.
In closing, the respondent submitted that it is common cause that N1 to N3 are being phased out and skills programmes are being introduced by the Department of Higher Education and Training. The College had to plan for this by purchasing relevant machinery and renovate/construct new building to make sure that the workshops met QCTO standards in order to be accredited. Mlumati Campus is overstaffed by twenty-five warm bodies. The College funds were being depleted, and the College could no longer afford the wage bill, consequently the Campus had to release at least five employees. Lecturers had to be given a full load and some Lecturers including the applicant could not be allocated classes. Proper consultations were done with Unions.
HR sent renewal of contracts to the Campus Manager, following the request by the campus to renew contracts and the approval by the Principal of the College. It is untrue that the applicant was not aware of his employment contracts and/ or status. The employer has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant did not have his contract with the College terminated but instead the contract reached its effluxion. There are no subjects for the applicant to teach. There is evidence of minutes of the consultation process between the Campus Management with Unions. The applicant’s claim for twelve months’ compensation should fail. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS
I have considered all relevant evidence and arguments raised by the parties and in doing so, I have only referred to evidence and arguments that I regard necessary to substantiate my findings and dispose of the dispute.
The applicant has referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the ELRC, alleging that the respondent by terminating his fixed-term contract at the end of December 2024, has unfairly dismissed him both procedurally and substantively.
The respondent disputes that the termination of the applicant’s contract amounts to dismissal. The respondent has submitted that the applicant’s contact reached its effluxion.
Was there a dismissal?
Section 186(1) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 provides as follows: 186 Meaning of dismissal and unfair labour practice

(1) Dismissal means that-
(b) an employee employed in terms of a fixed-term contract of employment reasonably expected the employer –
(i) to renew a fixed-term contract of employment on the same or similar terms but the employer offered to renew it on less favourable terms, or did not renew it, or
(ii) to retain the employee in employment on an indefinite basis but otherwise on the same or similar terms as the fixed-term contract, but the employer offered to retain the employee on less favourable terms, or did not offer to retain the employee;

The applicant has contended that he had a reasonable expectation that his contract of employment would be renewed and that he stood a good chance of being employed permanently by the respondent. It was the evidence of the applicant that he was employed as a Lecturer at Ehlanzeni TVET College, Mlumati Campus, on a fixed-term contract on 16 September 2020. The contract expired in December 2020, and he was offered a twelve-month contract that expired in December 2021. When he inquired about the status of his employed at the end of December 2021, he was told that the contracts on-going and he should not be concerned. He has not received any contract since but was retained by the College until December 2024.
The applicant led further evidence that he was notified of the termination of his contract, thirteen days before the College was to go on recess in December 2024. Three months prior to the termination, the applicant was requested to take over subjects in the NCV programme which had been offered by a lecturer who had resigned. He was advised by the HoD that he stood a good chance of being permanently employed if he agreed to take over the subjects in NCV, he had done so and went the extra mile in terms of working more hours than what was required and clearing backlog.
The applicant’s witnesses, Mr Pilson and Mr Manikela both corroborated the applicant’s evidence with regards to him having been requested to move from Nated engineering to NCV and working longer hours than what was required. Mr Pilson testified that he was in the company of the applicant when he received the call from Mr Chikodime requesting him to take over the subjects of the lecturer who had resigned, leaving a lot of backlog.
The Labour Court in Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Finance Eastern Cape v De Milander & Others (2011) 32 ILJ 2521 (LC) summarised the approach to be adopted to determine whether a reasonable expectation of renewal of a fixed term contract was established. The Court said the following:
“The onus to prove that the dismissal occurred in circumstances where the employee had a reasonable expectation that the fixed-term contract would be renewed at the end of its period rests with the employee. A dual enquiry is conducted in determining the existence of reasonable expectation. The first enquiry is subjective and entails enquiring into the subjective basis upon which the person who claims reasonable expectation relies in contending that his or her contract ought to have been renewed. The enquiry into reasonable expectation ends if the employee fails to show that he or she had the expectation that period of the fixed-term contract would be extended. If the employee is successful in showing that he or she had a subjective expectation that the contract would be renewed, then the second enquiry entails determining the existence of such expectation on the basis of the objective facts that existed prior to the termination of the contract. “
The applicant in this case led evidence that his contract was renewed over four years and that he was informed by the respondent that the contract was ongoing. This evidence was not disputed by the respondent. The respondent however contended that the applicant’s contract was extended yearly and that such extensions were communicated to the applicant. The applicant disputed having received any written extensions of the contract. The respondent failed to prove that the applicant did receive the extensions.
In light of the evidence led, I accept the applicant’s version that the applicant subjectively believed that his fixed-term contract would be renewed , taking into account the number of times that the contract was renewed and the fact that the applicant was teaching subjects that had been taught by a permanent lecturer and those subjects were still offered by the Campus. The respondent’s evidence that the applicant would not have classes to teach if he was retained is not supported by the evidence that was led. The respondent’s witnesses testified that the non-renewal of the applicant’s contract was mainly due to funding. The witnesses testified that the Campus Management had to optimise the allocation of work to permanent staff in order address the issue of reducing the staff compliment. No evidence was however led by the respondent to prove that the applicant would be redundant if his contract would continue to be renewed.
The argument by the applicant’s representative that the respondent could have considered placing the applicant in another campus was not disputed by the respondent. The applicant also led evidence that some lecturers who were employed on fixed-term contracts after him were still working, was not rebutted by the respondent. The respondent failed to lead evidence to show the justification of preferring to renew other lecturers’ fixed-term contracts over that of the applicant.
The applicant has succeeded in proving that he subjectively believed that he was dismissed by the respondent.
In determining if the applicant’s dismissal was unfair, taking into account objective facts that existed prior to the dismissal, I considered the evidence that was led by the parties. The applicant testified that his initial fixed-term contract of four months was renewed for successive twelve months’ periods from 2021 to 2024, automatically, and he was only informed verbally of the extensions/renewal. The respondent presented extension letters for the period in question. These letters, though addressed to the applicant, did not have any proof of service to the applicant or an acknowledgement by him that he received them. The respondent, sought to introduce emails to prove the service, after the applicant had already testified and when a new witness was about to testify. The application to exchange these emails was declined as it would be unfair to introduce new evidence at such a late stage in the arbitration. Based on the evidence presented, I accept the applicant’s version that he was informed of the extensions verbally and not in writing.
The frequency of the renewal, though on its own does not amount to reasonable expectation, I have also considered that the applicant was in September 2024 requested to take over the subjects that were taught by a permanent lecturer who had resigned, and he was advised that he would stand a better chance of becoming permanent employment. The respondent had not disputed this version but has led evidence to show that the promise of permanent employment was not official and it was not made by someone with the authority to do so and that permanent employment had to be made through proper recruitment processes which were not followed in this case.
The respondent has contended that the applicant’s contract was terminated due to financial constraints faced by the institution, and which led to the respondent embarking on cost curtailment measures. These measures included reallocating subjects to permanent staff and that this led to the applicant being redundant. The applicant conceded that some of the courses he was assigned to in Nated engineering were being phased out, he however disputed that he would not have enough classes to teach if his contract was renewed. The applicant led evidence that there were still students in the courses and that he had been reassigned work in NCV. The respondent did not dispute these facts and its contention that the applicant would not have subjects to teach was not substantiated with evidence.
As held by the Constitutional Court in Jones v CCMA and Others (C709/2018) [2021] ZALCCT 10, there is no closed list of factors to be considered in the objective test for determining if dismissal took place in terms of section 186(1)(b)(i). The Court went further to find that a reasonable expectation of permanent employment is not a factor that can be considered under section 186(1)(b) (i) of the LRA.
The applicant in this case has led satisfactory evidence that he had a reasonable expectation of his contract being renewed and that he may possibly be appointed permanently in future. The evidence by the applicant has satisfied the objective test and I find that on a balance of probabilities, a reasonable employee in the position of the applicant would have reasonably expected that his contract would be renewed again in 2025. The respondent has therefore, by not renewing the contract, unfairly dismissed the applicant.
The applicant has testified that he did not belong to a Union, and he was not made aware of any processes pertaining to the termination fixed term contracts, which unfolded between the respondent and Trade Unions. He only became aware that his contract would not be renewed when he received the notice of termination in November 2025. The respondent
I have also considered the wording in the fixed-term contract and the purported extensions. The letters state at the bottom of the page that “ This offer does not create a reasonable/ or legitimate expectation that should the post be advertised it should be given to you, the expectation will be that you apply for vacancies advertised by the college.” This clearly only deals with a reasonable expectation of permanency and not an expectation of renewal. The applicant was therefore aware that his appointment in the fixed-term contract and subsequent renewals did not create any expectation for a permanent appointment. He however can not be faulted for expecting that his contract would continue to be renewed. As held by the Labour Court in King Sabata Dalindyebo Municipality v CCMA & Others (2005) 26 ILJ 474 (LC), employees who have established that a reasonable expectation of renewal was established through repeated contract renewals, ongoing need for their services and the employer’s financial capacity amongst other things, have been unfairly dismissed and are entitled to relief.
I find that the respondent has, unfairly dismissed the applicant both procedurally and substantively, as envisaged in section 186(1)(b)(i) of the LRA. The applicant has prayed for an order for maximum compensation. In considering compensation, I have taken into account the applicant’s length of service with the respondent, his personal circumstances, his current employment status and the possibility of him applying for other positions. I have also considered that the respondent may consider employing the applicant in future should it be able to do so. I find that compensation equivaled to four (4) months’ salary will be appropriate.
The respondent must pay the applicant the amount of R 152,354.96 (R38,088.74 x 4 = R152, 354.96), less statutory deductions. Award
The respondent, Ehlanzeni TVET College has unfairly dismissed the applicant, Mr Bongumusa Dulcet Ndlovu. The dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair.
I order the respondent to pay the applicant compensation equivalent to four (4) months’ compensation,
in the amount of R152,354.96(R38,088.74 x 4 + R152,354.96), less statutory deductions.
The respondent must pay the applicant the amount in paragraph 2 above, through electronic bank transfer (EFT), by no later than 13 June 2025.