Case: ELRC 346 – 21/22KZN
Date of Award: 22 March 2026
Panelist : Vuyiso Ngcengeni

Province : KwaZulu Natal
Employee : SADTU obo Lucky Edmund Muziwenkosi Nkosi
Employer : Department of Education – KwaZulu Natal
Issue : Section 191 – Alleged Unfair Dismissal
Venue : Durban Teachers Centre

Employee representative : Adv CM Kulati
Email : kulati@law.co.za

Employer Representative : Mr Ramcheron and Mr B Hlela
Email :
DEFAULT ARBITRATION AWARD

DETAILS OF THE HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

1. The matter was scheduled before me on a number of days, the first being 23 May 2023 and the last day being 12 February 2026. The arbitration was held at the Teachers Training Centre in Durban, under the auspices of the Education Labour Relations Council (the Council) in terms of s191[(1)(5)(a)(i)] of the Labour Relations Act of 1995 as amended (the LRA).
2. The Employee was present at all times, together with his representative, Adv B Kulati. When the matter began before me, the Employer was represented by Mr Y Ramcheron, who is an official of the Employer. Ramcehron called three witnesses who concluded their evidence.
3. As the matter was set to continue on 13-14 February 2024, Mr B Hlela, a legal representative took over from Ramcheron. Going forward, the matter was unfortunately marred by numerous delays caused mainly by the Employer, by raising multiple points and also postponements, such that from 13 February 2024 to January 2026, the Employer had only called two witnesses and the last witnesses of the two had not concluded her testimony.
4. All in all, the Employer called ix witnesses and five of them concluded their evidence, while the Employee called four witnesses, and the matter has been set down for about 25 days, in addition to the other days in which it was before the other Commissioners.
5. When the matter continued on 19 January 2026, the Employer failed to attend. Upon enquiry to the Council, I was informed that the Employer has not submitted any reason/s for its absence. The matter was remanded for the next day, 20 January 2026, as it was set down for two days. Again, on 20 January 2026, the Employer made no appearance. The matter was set down on the same venue in which it had been heard over the previous sittings.
6. Having satisfied myself that the Employer was duly notified of the hearing, I then closed its case, and proceeded to hear the evidence of the Employee. The matter was again set down for 12 February 2026.
7. On 12 February 2026, I received correspondence via email, from Hlela attorneys, advising the Council that Mr Hlela had withdrawn from the matter. Hlela also informed the Council that the Employer had been aware of the set down dates, those would be 19-20 January 2026 and 12 February 2026. This affirmed my decision taken on 20 January 2026 to proceed with the matter.
8. The Employer submitted one bundle referred to as A which consists of the disciplinary hearing records, statements taken from the witnesses, pictures depicting the Employee with some of the educators from the same school, taken when they were outside the school, amongst others.
9. The Employee submitted bundle B, which consists of some pictures of the Employee with some educators from the school, the article from Isolezwe which triggered the investigation in the matter, the investigation report carried out by Ms ST Nkosi, pictures of the school set out, with labels and names depicting the offices and other apartments.
10. I received all the closing arguments by the 02 March 2026.
    ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED
11. I am called upon to determine whether the dismissal of the Employee was procedurally and substantively fair on the grounds below –

11.1 Procedure:
11.1.1 The Employer denied the Employee legal representation during the disciplinary hearing.
11.1.2 The Presiding Officer took into account hearsay evidence.
11.1.3 The Presiding Officer failed to bring an independent mind into the disciplinary hearing, as he failed to take into account the Employee’s three witnesses’ evidence into effect, which is that there was a plot to get rid of the Employee.
11.1.4 There was unreasonable delay in bringing the charges against the Employee, as some of the issues raised go back to 2013, when the charges were proffered to the Employee in 2020.

11.2 Substance: He denies all the charges and also, he was not found guilty of charge 6.

12. The Employee seeks reinstatement as relief.
    BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE
13. The Employee commenced employment with the Employer on 01 January 2005 and worked on various schools until he was transferred to Mariannpark Primary School as the departmental head 2013, where he was subsequently promoted to the position of Deputy Principal in June 2015 and again, to become a Principal in October 2018. He was dismissed on 15 June 2021 and at the time, he earned R50 341.44 per month.
14. He referred the matter to the Council, alleging that his dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair. The matter was then set down for arbitration for 23 May 2023, which was not for the first time. However, it was the first time that I became seized with the matter.
15. The Employee was charged and found guilty of the charges below –

15.1 Charge 1: During or about the period July 2013 to January 2015 at Mariannpark Primary School it is alleged that whilst on duty, in your capacity as Acting Principal, you conducted yourself in an improper disgraceful or unacceptable manner by making comments of a sexual nature to Nosipho Ntombifuthi Mthethwa and/or by suggesting that you go to the toilet with her and offering to assist her by wiping her private parts, thereby contravening Section 18(q) of the Employment of Educators Act.

15.2 Charge 2: During or about the period March 2019 to July 2019 it is alleged that whilst on duty, in your capacity as the Principal of Mariannpark Primary School, you conducated yourself in an improper, disgraceful or unacceptable manner by making utterances of a sexual nature to NE Manzi and/or by suggesting that you go to the toilet with her and offering to assist her by wiping her private parts thereby contravening Section 18(q) of the Employment of Educators Act.

15.3 Charge 3: count 1: In the period June 2014 and December 2015, it is alleged that you contravened Section 17 (1)(b) of the disciplinary code and procedure for Educators by committing an act of a sexual assault on Ms VN Dlamini by inviting her to your house under the pretext of cooking food for you where you lowered your pants and underpants and forcefully attempted to have sexual intercourse with her

Alternatively
In the period June 2014 and December 2015, it is alleged that you , you conducted yourself in an improper, disgraceful or unacceptable manner by making utterances of a sexual nature to VN Dlamini by inviting her to your house under the pretext of cooking food for you where you lowered your pants and underpants and forcefully attempted to have sexual intercourse with her.

Count 2: In the period June 2014 and December 2015, it is alleged that you contravened Section 18 (q) of the disciplinary code and procedure for Educators encapsulated in the Employment of Educators Act no 76 of 1998 as amended by sending pictures of male reproductive organs/genitals to Ms VN Dlamini cell phone.

15.4 Charge 4: count 1 – In the period August – September 2014, it is alleged that you contravened Section 17 (1)(b) of the disciplinary code and procedure for Educators encapsulated in the Employment of Educators Act by offering Ms ZN Ngubane a lift to her home from school where you drove her to a secluded spot namely the driving school ground below Marianhill train station whereby you forced yourself onto her by pushing your hands inside her skirt and attempting to grab her private parts.

count 2: In the course of April 2016 you made utterances of a sexual nature to Ms ZN Ngubane at Marianpark Primary school words to the effect “Buka ukuthi umuhle kanjani ufelwe indoda name ngihlukanisile nomkami asvele sithandane ungatsheli umuntu” causing her to cry at the time when she was grieving/mourning for the loss of her husband, thereby contravening Section 18 (q) of Schedule 2 the disciplinary code and procedure for Educators encapsulated in the Employment of Educators Act.

Count 3 In January 201,7 you called Ms ZN Ngubane to her office who was recovering from a back ache problem and you asked her to bend down so that you could see whether her back was functional in bed, thereby contravening Section 18 (q) of Schedule 2 the disciplinary code and procedure for Educators encapsulated in the Employment of Educators Act.

16. Charge 5, which related to another educator, was withdrawn and there was no charge six, as per the charge sheet on pages 2 to 5 of the Employee bundle, B. The appeal outcome (pages 62-64 – B) also reflects charges listed about.
17. In this default award, the Employer’s evidence is also captured as it formed part of the proceeding. The Employer’s five witnesses concluded their testimonies and those are: Ms Mhlanga, Ms Ngubane, Ms Mthethwa, Ms Mdaka and Ms Ngcobo. Ms Manzi is the only one who did not conclude her evidence. All the Employer’s witnesses were educators based at the school, at the time of charges.
18. Although the parties had agreed on conducting an inspection in loco at the school, this could not be successfully carried out, because when the whole team went to the school for the exercise on 17 September 2025, after confirmation from the Employer that the team could depart from the Teachers Training Centre to the school, which is about 28 kilometres away, upon arrival at the school we were advised that the Principal’s office was locked and that the principal was not available. As a result, the inspection did not take place as planned.
19. All witnesses led evidence under oath.

SURVEY OF EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
Employer’s case
Ms Zinhle Ntombifuthi Ngubane (Ngubane) testified as follows: –

20. She is an educator, based at the school. In relation to charge number 4, she started teaching at the school when the Employee was the departmental head, that was in August 2014. It was her first time working as a teacher. Whenever she submitted lessons into his office, he would stand up, hold her and kiss her, forcing her to kiss him, even when she was submitting lesson plan forms. This happened more than once on each week she. She would report that to Gama, who was a SADTU SITE steward and Gama told her to just ignore him.
21. She lived in Mpola area and used taxis to come to school, sometimes the Employee would give her a lift going to school and back home which he offered without her asking for it, so as Ms Mdaka and also Mr Dlamini.
22. During 2014 after school, around 14h00 as she went home with the Employee, he diverted the car from the main route and drove to a drivers’ testing ground in Marianhill. She asked him why was he diverting from the route and he said he was going check something. He told her that at school, nobody liked her, except himself, and that in addition, Naidoo wanted to employ an Indian teacher to teach isiZulu and he fought against that. He told her that she was at the school because of him, and he was the one who fought for her to get the post.
23. As the car had stopped, he came closer to her. She was wearing a skirt with an elastic, he put his hands inside her skirt, downwards, she then held his hand. She was shocked. After that, he drove the car back to the main route, still insisting that nobody liked her.
24. She phoned Gama and reported the incident in the following day, as Gama was not at school. Gama did nothing. She did not report the incident to the Employer. This incident came after the incidents of him forcing her to kiss him in his office. She then stopped submitting reports to the Employee until towards the end of 2015 when Ms VN Dlamini was appointed as the departmental head, and the Employee was appointed as the acting deputy principal. When she stopped submitting reports and lesson plans to the Employee when he was her departmental head, he did not say anything.
25. Regarding count 2, in April 2016, the Employee started phoning her, claiming that he was alone in his house, with no wife and he was having sex with her through masturbation. He also told her that he was horny, and sent her pictures of his private parts.
26. When the schools opened, she came back to the school and she met him on the stairways when he said “look at how beautiful you are” and at that time, she had lost her husband. He told her that he was divorced, so they should date and not tell anyone. She did not respond to him and she went to her class room and cried. Mdaka came and found her crying and she took her to the staff room, together with Gama. They met Naidoo who asked why was she crying and she did not tell her what the reasons were. Naidoo comforted her.
27. When the Employee started phoning her, it was before her husband died, because he died in March. He would call her anytime, they were communicating with phones as well as WhatsApp. He told her that he was horny only once. When he sent her the picture of the penis, he said that was his penis. She lost the phone which had the picture of his penis that he sent to her. She told Gama about the Employee’s private part and that he told her that he was horny. That was when Gama said that was nothing.
28. After the incidents above, the Employee offered to take her to his doctor, as she had a back-ache at the time, and that was around August to September 2016. She was walking slowly, usually absent from the school, and that is how he became aware that she was not well. Naidoo and the Employee called her into a meeting and they discussed the issue and that is when the Employee volunteered to take her to his doctor.
29. After school, the Employee, herself and Gama went to see the doctor. He dropped them by the doctor and they returned home with taxis. At that stage, she was no longer friends with him, and she was no longer accepting his lifts when going home from the school, after he had diverted and went to the testing grounds with her. She went to the doctor with him because Gama was with them.
30. Regarding count 3, when she was in the classroom, a learner came and asked to go to the deputy principal’s office, she did and found Mr Mazibuko, the SGB Chairman and the Employee, where the Employee claimed that he had helped her with her back and she was now fine and functioning in the bed. She admitted that he helped her, she then bent to illustrate that she was fine. After that, nothing happened and everything was normal.
31. Her statement is on page 3 and was signed on 30 October 2019. At some stage, the Employee asked to go have tea with her and she refused. She could not recall if that was before the incidents or not.
32. Before the Isolezwe article came out, which is 15 September 2019, the Employee called a meeting in which he congratulated the SADTU choir that they won and reminded them to sign leave forms. He also talked about the fencing of the school and that it was not safe, and further, that he was not safe at home as four men, 2 blacks and 2 coloureds came to his house and that they were sent by people in the school. He also said all of them at the school were close to him, he also talked about another school that was going to visit the school Friday, 13 September 2019. He further said he had the footage of the four men who wanted to kill him.
33. They were shocked and she did not see the footage. After that, on Sunday, whilst she was at home in Ixopo, she got a phone call from a friend of hers, who asked her why do they wanted to kill the Employee, and that friend sent her the article in Isolezwe.
34. The following day, Monday, whilst at the school, they read the article at the staff room and the educators were not in the right state of mind for teaching. They asked her to call a meeting, which she did and SADTU held a meeting. At the meeting, she ended up saying since the school was not only made of SADTU members, she need to talk to NAPTOSA and NATU. They took a decision to write a letter to the Employee to come and explain himself.
35. They gave the letter to Mr Govendor, an SGB member to give to the Employee. She could not recall to whom did Govendor give the letter because the Employee was not present. The meeting to meet with the Employee never took place.
36. As SADTU, they wanted the Employee to apologise and retract the statement as they saw the statement as saying they were involved in sending the four men to his house. The Employee came and did not retract the statement, instead, he laughed at them. The meeting was attended by the staff from the school, including VN Dlamini, Dubazana and the Employee. Also in attendance were two members of the SADTU BEC.
37. They told the Employee that they were not safe when at the school, if they have a person who is being followed by hitman.
38. Ms Mlilwane from SACE advised her to write a statement on 30 October 2019 after the Employee charged her with insubordination and insolence. She told SADTU of the charges and explained that she was calling Ntombela because Ntombela’s class was making noise, and that the Employee told her to go and speak to her departmental head, she ignored him and that led to him saying she was disrespecting him. When she was calling Ntombela, the Employee was sitting in the car park.
39. As they talked about the charges, she then informed them that she and the Employee are not in good terms as he wanted to be in love with her. Sandile, from SACE came and asked if there was something that made her and the Employee not to be in good terms, and that was when she told him about the love proposal from the Employee which she rejected, may be was the reason for him to charge her. She also told Sandile about the testing ground incident. Sandile told her to tell the truth to the SACE lady and he (Sandile) was not going to add anything to her statement.
40. In that meeting, which was on 23 August 2019, she did not write any statement. The SACE lady advised her to report the incident to the Employer as she also has the right to do so. She was not found guilty by SACE and they said the matter needed to be resolved internally.
41. The charge of insubordination emanated from her having gone to the car park ad called Ntombela, when she told the Employee that she was not speaking to him, but to Ntombela and he became very angry as if she had said something very bad. He then called Mr Nzama and reported that she was disrespectful to him, and he charged her. That was on 23 August 2019 when he was the Principal.
42. The case that the Employee had brought to SACE against her was dismissed.
43. On page 3 is her statement. She was not the only one who wrote to SACE, Ms Nosipho Mthethwa, Mrs , Ms Mkhwanazi, Ms Buthelezi also did so.
44. A meeting was held at the principal’s office where she was asked about the statement and the fact that she was not submitting because the Employee was kissing her when she is in his office, which made her to submit only to Dlamini after she had taken over.
45. She does not know if the Employee reported the incident in the article to SAPS and does not know of any educator who was arrested in connection to the same article.
46. When she stopped submitting plans to the Employee, he did not charge her. The Employee was her supervisor. He did not charge her because had he done so, she would have reported him to Naidoo.
47. Cross examination – She could not recall any point in which she became angry with the Employee. She arrived at the school in 2014 August and at that time, she was not married. She had not attended any interviews whether at the school or the department. She went to the school and dropped her details, when she was seeking employment.
48. Naidoo informed her that she had a permanent vacant post, and the Employee was present in that meeting as he was part of the school management team (SMT). In her cv, she had stated that she liked choral music. She told them that she was a choral music conductor.
49. She denied that after the meeting, she was left with the Employee alone regarding the choral music item.
50. When she started at the school, the Employee gave her a lift and he also gave a lift to other educators in the afternoons. He was very carrying, whenever he saw her on the bus stop, he would give her a lift and usually, he gave her lift in the mornings and afternoons from August 2014 to 2016. She could not remember if that continued in 2017. She did not notice the date in the charge but what she wrote is the fact.
51. She has never been to the Employee’s house, she would go home when the other educators went to his house. The alternative charge also has the incorrect date, but the event is correct
52. There is no charge that talks to the Employee having tried to kiss her, neither is there anything talking about her stopping to submit lesson plans to the Employee. The charge that speaks about the testing drive incident has the incorrect date. It was in April 2015 when he drove with her to the testing ground, it was at about 14h30. At the train station, there are trees and there are no other businesses in the area, on that day, there was no one around. It is not that there would be people driving around.
53. She had been to the ground with an instructor before, many times and that started in 2014. It is fair to say that was in 2014 and 2015. When she went to the ground with the Employee, he was driving a BMW X5, grey in colour, which is a SUV. She was seating upright in the passenger seat, whilst the Employee sat on the driver seat when he pushed his hand inside her skirt. The Employee had the same body structure in 2016, as he is now, he was big with tummy.
54. She could not remember if there was a space between them or not. She did not know that BMW X 5, because of its size, has a bigger space between the driver and the passenger seat. It is correct that she had been inside the vehicle many times before. He pushed his hand inside her private parts.
55. Their relationship started to be bad when he drove with her to the testing ground, which happened once, and that was in April 2015. What happened between August and September of 2014 is the submission of lessons.
56. The Employee turned the car in the train station. She was not sure of the date but it was not in August 2014. In her statement, she wrote that the incident of the car was in April 2015, so the date in the charge is wrong. She is not the one who wrote the charge. She could not remember if the same charge was put to her in the disciplinary hearing
57. She agreed that the Employee has always had a good relationship with her until she became a SITE steward. Even after she became a SITE steward, he assisted her on the duties of being a SITE steward, and that should be in 2019, after Gama had resigned.
58. The bad relationship started when the Employee charged her with the South African Council of Educators (SACE), saying she did not respect him, and that was around April 2020. The SACE case was held in August 2020, and she remembered that because it was around her birthday, which is 26 of August.
59. She went to the office and found Messrs Dlamini and Shabalala and they told her that Ntombela was in the park. She did not report the incident to her departmental head because as educators, they covered each other and they don’t just report to management. She knew that Ntombela was present at the school, so she just needed to find her.
60. She did not know why was Ntombela not in the class and only found that afterwards, that Ntombela had been with the principal. When she found Ntombela in the car park, she was not crying. The person who was nearer to Ntombela was the Employee, then Mr Mazibuko, the SGB chairman, Ms Nxumalo – an SGB educator representative, Messrs Mzobe and Cikwayo were at the security gate. Ntombela was also the SGB member, so all of these people were SGB members, but they were not in a meeting, they were just standing around.
61. She called Ntombela and asked her why was she standing there and why was she crying and also, that learners were making noise, irritating her. Before Ntombela could reply, the Employee replied. These SGB members were not in a meeting, if that was the case, they would have used a classroom for that. She did not rudely disrupt them, she was talking to Ntombela.
62. The Employee told her to go and tell Ntombela’s departmental head. She did not do that. There was nothing that Ntombela had said to her for her to protect Ntombela, but she did so as a woman and as a SITE steward.
63. She denied that when the Employee answered, she told him that she was not speaking to her, but to Ntombela. The Employee then phoned someone and reported that she was being rude and disrupting an SGB meeting. She could see that the Employee was angry and shaking.
64. She did not wish to see the Employee being dismissed. The union, SADTU, came to the school regarding the issues raised in the article and they wanted him to come and apologise because they loved him. they told the union that they were going to accept his apology and had he done so, he would not have been dismissed.
65. She was referred to page 19 – A (the article) paragraph 4 which reads thus “Umthombo othembekile oxoxe neSolezwe ngeSonto uthi uNkosi njengoba enguthishomkhulu waseMerian Park Primary kunombango wesikhundla asiphethe yingakho elandelwa yizinkabi” literally meaning a reliable source who spoke with Isolezwe on Sunday says Nkosi, as he is the Principal at Marian Park Primary there is competition regarding the position he holds that is why he is being followed by hitman.
66. She said the Employee is the reliable source cited in the article, because he held a meeting with them, that is why they wanted him to tell them what was going on. On the following day (Tuesday, 17 September 2019), teachers came to her and asked to have a meeting with the Employee as they felt that they were not happy to work with someone who was being followed by hitman.
67. On Friday, 13 September 2019, when they hosted the visiting school, she saw that the teachers were enjoying themselves with the Employee, laughing, cooking together. She saw these in the pictures.
68. Pg 19, par 5 read “Kuthiwa kukhona abangamfuni kulesi sikhundla futhi sebeke bamtshela emehlweni ukuthi abamdingi kulesi sikole” literaly meaning, it was reported that there are some who don’t want him in this position and they have told him directly that they do not need him at the school.
69. She does not know about a meeting of the SADTU branch where the Employee was called and told that he needed to be moved out of the school because he was too strict. That was unlikely because all they wanted was for him to apologise. The Employee brought good things and progress to the school.
70. She did not know whether the Employee is hard headed such that he would refuse to apologise.
71. She heard about the Employee having been involved in a car accident.
72. The Employee did not attend the meeting at the school, that meeting was not only called by SADTU, it was all the unions. The meeting took place during the break, so she does not know why would the Employee say he saw educators leaving for a meeting.
73. She did not know that the Employee was at school during that day and he was busy with auditors.
74. When it was put to her that the Employee had no knowledge that the meeting expected him to come and apologise, she said that was being handled by the Branch Executive Committee (BEC), not her as the SITE steward. The BEC told her that after Monday’s meeting, the Employee was told to come, clarify himself regarding the article and apologise. They asked Govender if he had given the letter to the Employee with the demand for the apology and clarification or retraction, Govender confirmed that the Employee was given the letter.
75. She was aware of the meeting at Voortrekker street when the Employee was present and they presented their issues and there was no response. Mr Nzama, the District Director was also present.
76. She denied that the alleged disrespect she showed against the Employee in April, was not the first one, and that she would normally just budge into the Employee’s office and demand to speak to him, even when he was in a meeting, telling him that she was more important than anyone else. She knew that at some stage, the BEC came to the school regarding her and the Employee not in speaking terms, but nothing wrong was found.
77. She did not remember any meeting in which she was present and Shabalala being present, including the one held at the Durban teachers centre. She did not know about any fabrications against the Employee.
78. She denied that there was a meeting held at the teachers centre where Mr Ramcheron told her to write a statement. She wrote her statement at the district offices. She agreed with the summary of the report drafted by Mrs Nkosi on page 21 – B, in which the background states “Since the 18th of September 2019 there has been no effective teaching and learning at the abovementioned school. About 35 Educators left the school and came to the Circuit Office.”
79. When asked whether a person who attends a meeting without being invited, is that person respectful or disrespectful, she said no one would do that, however, teachers automatically attend SGB meetings.
80. She denied that even after April 2015, the Employee was still giving her lifts, hence he took her to the doctor. He only gave her a lift when she was with Gama on one day, to the doctor. She felt safe on that day.
81. There were no issues between her and the Employee that were disturbing teaching and learning, but there were other issues. She was of the view that only the Employee, as the principal, could report her to SACE, until Mlilwana advised her that she also has the right to do so, in August 2019.
82. She agreed that during the meeting in which she wrote the statement, she had not written any statement before, in which she was complaining about the Employee involving sexual harassment.
83. The Employee was the source of the article because some of the things mentioned in it are what he said in the meeting before the article came out. The Employee never apologised.
84. She agrees with the recommendations made by Ms Nkosi. Regarding the sexual harassment allegations, questions in that regard should be addressed to management.
85. The things that they wrote about the Employee are true, it is just that they were living with them.

Ms Helen Nosipho Mthethwa testified as follows: –

86. She was a grade R teacher at the school and it is her name that appears on charge number 1.
87. During the day, at around 12h30, she would normally go to the toilets as the learners would be on break. The Employee would see her as she went to the toilet, through the glass door and ask her if he could assist her in the toilet by wiping her private parts. That led to her deciding to use a bucket in the class and to no longer go to the toilets.
88. That is why Ms Nokukhanya Ngcobo found her peeing in a bucket in her class, and asked the reasons. She explained to Ngcobo the reasons for peeing in the bucket. Ngcobo is her colleague and her classes were next to each other. The bucket was kept next to her desk in the class.
89. There were other educators who also used the buckets, such as Ms Nompumelelo Manzi, who also said she used the bucket because the Employee was going to their toilets.
90. When the Employee was not in his office, he would be leaning on a bench next to the toilet and would ask her “do you no want me to come and wipe you”. He would always make comments and that made her to feel uncomfortable.
91. She respected the Employee as a Principal, knowing that she was a grade R teacher and her contract needed to be signed by him, so she just decided to use the bucket.
92. She submitted the statement on page 11-12. She used to go alone to the toilet when the Employee would make the said comments. The Employee proposed love to her and she told him that she had a boyfriend and that he was the person that she looked up to.
93. She used to be friends with the Employee, but their relationship ended and she started avoiding him, after he started asking to go wipe her private parts, and that happened from 2013 until around 2017 or 2018.
94. After reading the article in Isolezwe, they asked for a meeting and wanted the Emplouyee to explain what does the article mean when it says he said there were people in the school who wanted to kill him. the Employee did not explain anything to them, and he just said, one of them wanted him dead.
95. The educators were angry and they did not go to the classes, they wanted answers. They involved all the unions and the MEC, at that time, they were not reporting at the school, but at the district offices. The MEC convened a meeting with them on 20 September 2019 or 2020.
96. The sexual harassment utterances made by the Employee to her was before 2019 and she did not report it when it happened because there was no one who she could report it to. The Employee was the head of department at the time. She did not report it to the deputy principal because she thought the Employee just had a crush on her and it would vanish.
97. Cross examination – She completed her practicals in January 2015, after that she left the school and came back in July 2015, as a grade R teacher. He departmental head was Mr S Jackeran. It was a few months after 20 July 2015 when the Employee proposed love to her. Proposing love to her is not sexual harassment as he was expressing his feelings.
98. In 2013, there is nothing that the Employee did or said to her which she regarded as sexual offence. He said something offensive to her in 2017, so the charge is incorrect in saying the issue went on to the other years. The charge is incorrect to include 2014.
99. In 2015, the Employee did not say anything to her that she regarded as being offensive. The dates in the charge are wrong and the position of the Employee is incorrect as he was not the deputy principal.
100. From 2013 until January 2015, she did not use a bucket to pee, as she did not have a classroom at the time. Because of the wrong dates in the charge, it is incorrect for the Employer to say the Employee went with her to the toilet and asked to assist wipe her private parts.
101. She did not comment when it was put to her that they misinterpreted the Isolezwe article by saying that the Employee said one of the educators at the school wanted to kill him.
102. She agreed that most educators, as they went to report at the district offices, were afraid that the people who attempted to kill the Employee would go to the school.
103. She does not dispute that the Employee was a friendly person and that they used to go to his house to have parties. She once told him about her birthday and he offered to take her out. Also, the Employee would sometimes take her home with his vehicle.
104. It was around the third quarter of 2017 when the Employee asked her about wiping her private part. She was surprised when the Employee uttered those words, and she continued to the toilet and closed the door. The Employee did not follow her.
105. She started using the bucket around the same period in 2017. In 2018, when they working together in the preparations for Naidoo’s farewell, he did not say anything untoward to her because they were stressed at the time. When they went to her colleague’s funeral together with the Employee, he did not say anything untoward.
106. She continued to use the bucket even in 2018, 2019 and after the Employee had left the school, as that had become a habit.
107. She is the one in the picture on page 14 – A, and that could have been in 2018 or 2019, she was with the Employee and they were celebrating the heritage day. Her friendship with the Employee did not end, she just ghosted him. She also appears in many other fotos in the bundle until sometime in early 2019.
108. The Employee was not a person who walked around entering the classes, so he probably would not have seen the bucket.

Ms Jennifer Mhlanga testified as follows: –

109. She is an educator at the school and she started in March 2023. She had not taught anywhere else before joining the school. Regarding charge 2, she was present when the incident happened and she was in the grade 1 block, opposite grade 2 block. She and Mrs Manzi went down the passage at about 11h30. As they got inside the toilets, the Employee was in the toilet, standing next to the toilet basin/cubical. These were the female toilets.
110. There were three cubicles in the facility. There was no toilet paper, so the Employee went out and came back with the toilet paper in his hand and gave it to Manzi. He then asked Manzi if he could come inside with her so that he can wipe her private parts. Manzi clicked her tongue and took the toilet paper and he walked out.
111. Manzi was very upset and said she would tell her husband. The Employee spoke in isiZulu “awufuni ngingene nawe khona ngizokusula”.
112. She was present during that time and she was a student teacher for one month from 11 July 2019 until aroun 08 August 2019.
113. Cross examination –she passed her last grade at the school, that was grade 7 in 2011. At that time, Manzi was at the school but she was never in Manzi’s class and Manzi never taught her.
114. Her evidence is about what happened in 2019. She did not know if such an issue happened everyday or not. She was not aware of any other teacher who would have made similar allegations. What she said is what she saw and what happened on that specific day.
115. The Employee never asked to go to the toilet with her so that he could wipe her private parts, nor grabbed and kissed her. Having realised that there was no toilet paper, she stood outside the cubicle and the Employee went to fetch it.
116. It took about 30 seconds for the Employee to go and bring the toilet paper with. She took some as he gave some to Manzi. She did not say anything to the Employee and the Employee also said nothing to her.
117. It was not her business to ask the Employee what was he doing in the females’ toilets. The Employee was not inside the cubicle, he was just outside it. She did not have to ask him to leave because he left on his own.
118. There is nothing in Manzi’s statement that says she (Mhlanga) was also in the toilets. There are cleaners at the school and they are responsible to also put toilet paper in the toilets. She did not ask the cleaners for the toilet paper. She could not dispute that cleaners clean every morning and put in the toilet papers.
119. She had no comment when it was put to her that the Employee denies that he was in the toilets with her.The incident happened a few days after she arrived at the school. She met the Employee for the first time when she arrived at the school in July 2019.
     Ms Nokuthula Gama (Gama) testified as follows: –
120. She is employed as a level 1 educator at the school and she knows the Employee. She has never testified in this case before. She knows Ngubane and she was introduced to her by the Employee when she arrived at the school. They worked well at the school.
121. The Employee brought a consultant to the school, from an insurance company to advise Ngubane to take a policy. The Employee usually assisted Ngubane by giving her a lift going back home at the time when Ngubane had not yet gotten paid. Ngubane and the Employee would sometimes sit together and eat together.
122. She was a SADTU site steward and after sometime, Ngubane told her that the Employee had done something to her. At that time, they were just chatting and eating. Ngubane was not making an official report because as the union, they advised their members to place a formal complaint in writing. They spoke as friends and she did not take what Ngubane said seriously. Sometimes they would visit the Employee’s house to eat and have meat, as teachers.
123. Ngubane told her that there was a place which is like a vehicle testing ground for licences, and that the Employee took her to that ground and told her to bend. She (Gama) just laughed that off and said the Employee would not do such a thing.
124. The other time, the Employee took Ngubane to the medical doctor and she (Gama) also accompanied them. She never asked the Employee about the incident that took place in the testing ground.
125. When she said they were a unit, that is because she never thought the Employee would tell Ngubane to bend, because they were friends. She did not know how would Ngubane create such a story. She would not know what was in Ngubane’s mind.
126. She thiinks the issue of bending happened outside the car, because it could not happen inside it. Ngubane did not specify where did it happen. In the disciplinary hearing, she testified on behalf of Ngubane. Ngubane did not explain how the Employee told her to bend.
127. After reading the article and that there were people who wanted to kill the Employee, they decided to remove themselves from the school for their own safety, also because they were involved as the article said the issue was about the dispute of the position the Employee held at the school. The other issue is that the Employee is a public figure, so he was followed by a lot of people.
128. At no stage was there a resolution to remove the Employee from the school. During her time as a SITE steward, there are no allegations that she had dealt with in relation to the Employee.
129. In the meeting held at the school by the MEC, all staff were present, including Shabalala.
130. She has never attended a meeting where a strategy was devised to remove the Employee from the school. The meeting at the Durban Teachers Centre was a disciplinary hearing, not just a meeting. She did not know if at that time, the Employee had already been charged or not.
131. Cross examination – She denied that she was threatened that if she did not come to testify in the arbitration, her salary would be docked. At school, they sometimes ate together and those are: Ngubane, Ms Gumede, Ms NV Dlamini, Ms Dubazane, Ms Mthethwa and others. Sometimes the Employee sometimes would join them and sometimes, they would go to his house.
132. When Ngubane related the story to her, they sat alone, only the two of them. She was confused on hearing the story because she thought they were a unit.
133. At the disciplinary hearing, she testified for Ms NV Dlamini and now she is testifying for Ngubane. She advised Ngubane to follow the procedure, that is to write a formal letter to SITE leadership, but Ngubane did not respond.
134. When she receives a report as a SITE steward, she calls other two members who are also SITE stewards to discuss the matter and decide on whether to refer it to upper structures or not. But in the case of Ngubane, it was not a formal report, although she appeared disturbed.
135. She did not have any answer on why was she testifying for Ngubane in the arbitration. Ngubane did not demonstrate to her how did the Employee tell her to bend and since she was not present at that time, she would not be able to say how did the Employee do so. Ngubane did not tell her whether they were inside or outside the car. When a female is told to bend, there is so much that goes into someone’s mind. She could not recall when was this incident, but it was not long after Ngubane joined the school and it was before he took Ngubane to the doctor.
136. When it was put to her that Ngubane said she told her that as they sat in the Employee’s BMW X5, he inserted his hand into her skirt, to her panty, not bending, she said she knew nothing about that.
137. When it was put to her that when a female is sitting upright in a passenger seat, it is impossible for the Employee to insert his hand inside her skirt, she said she was not present and she could only say what Ngubane told her.
138. She was shocked at hearing from Ngubane that the Employee had told her to bend.
139. She knows about the article published in Isolezwe newspaper and when they received it, they were hurt. She was at a local supermarket when someone asked her why were they intent on killing the Employee. It was bad and she also knew that the Employee knows a lot of people. She was no longer a SITE steward at the time (2019).
140. She denied that they formed the view that the reliable source referred to in the article was the Employee. She may not have been present when the staff said they would return to the school only after the Employee had apologised. As the staff, they went to report for work at the Hammersdale where the site manager’s office is (CMC) as well as at the Chrowthorn offices, in the district.
141. When the MEC arrived at the school, there were also some parents present during that meeting. The Employee was also present
142. She agreed that at the time when they reported at the district offices, not at the school, the issue was about the article and she felt unsafe at the school since the Employee knows a lot of people and those people might attack him at the school. They did not have any issues against the Employee, until the article appeared.
143. She was not aware of the investigation conducted by the Employer, after they were not reporting at the school. She did not remember anyone explaining to them that they would have to be on leave without pay.
144. There were many meetings held where SADTU was involved as well as the department, following the article. She did not remember if they were at some point told by Mrs Nkosi to go back to school, even where Mrs Nkosi was not present.
145. She remembered the meeting held with SADTU but she could not remember the content of the discussions. But she recalled that the Employee was present. After being put to her that the Employee spoke in that meeting and asked how can he apologise when he did not write the article, she then said she remembered.
146. It is correct that during the meeting convened by the MEC, no one raised any issue regarding sexual harassment. She remembered Mr Shabalala from the school, who was one of the three NATU members at the school. She did remember whether Shabalala attended the meetings called regarding the issues at the school. It is possible that Shabalala was close with TT Dlamini because they were friends.
147. They never wanted the Employee to be taken out from the school. The Employee was being sought by hitmen, so they wanted that once the whole issue was over, the Employee should then come back to the school. They never demanded that he must be dismissed.
148. She remembers the meeting called by Mr Eunice Ramcheron, who is from the Labour Relations Department, but that was not a meeting per se, it was a disciplinary hearing. Teachers had come to give support since the schools were closed. The hearing was also attended by Mrs Manzi and her husband.
149. She did not remember exactly whether they were asked whether they wanted the Employee to be transferred or charged. She could not dispute that Shabalala raised his hand and spoke in the meeting. She did not hear issue relating to sexual harassment on that day. Shabalala kept on having side meetings with Ramcheron. She could not deny that that was when the issues relating to sexual harassment were raised and Shabalala then said even though he despises the Employee, he would not participate in such a meeting.
150. She was shocked by the sexual harassment allegations, like all of them. It could be that Ngubane phoned her and informed her about the incident in the testing ground, she cannot remember well as that was a long time ago.

Ms Nokuthula Ngcobo (Ngcobo) testified as follows: –

151. She is an educator based at the school, since 2015. She knew the Employee and she considered him a friend to her. She also knew Ms Mkhwanazi and she testified in the disciplinary hearing and her evidence is captured on page 43-A. On page 74 of the Employee bundle, she is the one standing on the left side to the Employee.
152. When she joined the school, the Employee was a Deputy Principal. She was on a yearly Fixed Term Contract, teaching grade R. Ms Mkhwanazi joined the school in August 2015 and she thinks Mkhwanzai may have been a substitute teacher.
153. She knew that the Employee used to go with Mkhwanazi when going to TRURO house (Employer’s offices in Durban) to submit forms. They would sometimes depart from the school, or sometimes talk privately, then go to TRURO house. Sometimes Mkhwanazi would request her to accompany her because she was scared, they would then leave together, joining the Employee.
154. She was able to communicate with the Employee about issues not related to school. The Employee, since he was taking Mkhwanazi to TRURO house, would tell her that Mkhwanazi needed to thank him in some other way, and she (Ngcobo) did not know what did the Employee mean by “other way”. Mkhwanazi said she was scared of the Employee because he was older than her and she (Mkhwanazi) could see that he wanted her, because there was an incident when they (Mkhwanazi and the Employee) were coming from TRURO house and they went into his house, where he tried to kiss her, she cried and he let her go and took her home.
155. At no stage did Mkhwanazi tell her that she was in a relationship with the Employee. Mkhwanazi said the reason for her to refuse and to cry was that she was scared, because the Employee was about her own father’s age and she took him like her father.
156. On page 16 – B, is her picture, with Mkhwanazi, Buthelezi and the Employee.
157. In one occasion, she was present when the Employee told Mkhwanazi that he loves her and he also touched her shoulders and her thighs. During that time, Mhlanga and Mr Dlamini were not dating. Her testimony has nothing to do with Mkhwanazi having taken Dlamini from Mhlanga, there is no relationship between these issues.
158. What she heard about Shabalala and the plot to dismiss the Employee was new to her and she heard it for the first time in the arbitration. She was not sure whether what Mkhwanazi told her about the Employee constitute sexual harassment or not.
159. She denied that they raised the complaints against the Employee was because their salaries would be docked. During the meeting convened by the MEC, she has no idea whether Shabalala was present. She is also not aware of what role did Shabalala play during the investigation and the placing of charges against the Employee.
160. Ms Dubazana was not present in the meeting held at the Teachers centre.
161. Cross examination – She did not comment when it was put to her that her evidence as well as that of Mkhwanazi was not accepted by the presiding officer in the disciplinary hearing. In the analysis of the disciplinary hearing, there is no mention of her name and that of Mkhwanazi as well as in the appeal outcome.
162. When it was put to her that at no stage did Mkhwanazi say the Employee touched her thighs and shoulders, she said she was telling what she saw as she was present. She disagrees that Mkhwanazi is the one who should have mentioned that the Employee touched her thighs and shoulders.
163. She arrived at the school in 2015, she could not remember the month. She testify against the Employee in 2019 but she could not remember the month. In October 2020, she was appointed on a permanent basis, and Mr TT Dlamini was the principal at the time.
164. She did not know about TT Dlamini and Mkhwanazi having been in a sexual relationship in 2020, but she knew that they were together and they would go out on vacation together and she would see that on social media.
165. She and Mkhwanazi were friends, but Mkhwanazi did not share private details with her. She would not dispute that Mkhwanazi and TT Dlamini were in a sexual relationship, and that they were staying together as boyfriend and girlfriend.
166. She did not remember when was TT Dlamini appointed as the principal, but when she was permanently appointed, he was already a principal. She denied that she was appointed permanently because of her testimony against the Employee. Even if the Employee was still the principal at the school, she would have been appointed permanently.
167. Her being appointed on a permanent basis did not come as a result of the Employee being dismissed, it was going to happen because when there is a vacancy, the school appoints someone who is in grade R who is not permanent, and that was not happening for the first time in the school. It did not happen because TT Dlamini was staying together with Mkhwanazi.
168. At the time, 2015, the Employee was doing everything at the school, he was like a principal. She recalled one trip to Hammersdale when the Employee took them to a lot of placed which were new. He was hands-on and very helpful to all teachers and learners at the school.
169. Mkhwanazi told her that when the Employee tried to kiss her, she cried and he took her home, although this is not in Mkhwanazi’s statement, the Employee also told her that he tried to kiss Mkhwanazi and she refused.
170. It was put to her that the Employee never tried to kiss Mkhwanazi and that at the time, he was in a relationship, she did not comment.
171. The school had six other male teachers and out of all of them, when there was someone who did not get paid, the Employee was the only one who cared. The Employee was well informed, well connected and he knew where to go when help was needed. She agreed that the Employee was more biased in assisting African teachers, since the Indian teachers had their own principal who even tasked the Employee with certain activities. The Employee has never asked for favours from her.
172. She did not know why the other teachers would later accuse him of sexual harassment. When the Employee told her that he loves Mkhwanazi, that is not sexual harassment.
173. She does not remember an incident where Mkhwanazi said she went to TRURO house with the Employee alone. All she remembers is that Mkhwanazi said he tried to kiss her in his house, as to where were they coming from, she has no idea and she does not remember what year was that.
174. She would not dispute that that was in 2015. Mkhwanazi said they were inside the Employee’s house when he attempted to kiss her. When shown that Mkhwanazi, in her own statement said she was outside the house, she (Ngcobo) said Mkhwanazi could answer that because it was only Mkhwanazi and the Employee who were present.
175. She thought the trip to TRURO house in which she was also present was for Mkhwanazi to submit her papers, but she did not know what those papers were.
176. She had been at the Employee’s house about two times before, when they had staff parties and when they had closed early at the school. The Employee is the one who suggested that they could go to his house to finish the party. She could not recall what did they go to his house for, on the second time.
     Ms Nompumelelo Evidence Manzi testified as follows –
177. When the Employee arrived at the school, he was the departmental head. It is her statement contained on page 10. She knew about the charges laid against the Employee and she testified in the disciplinary hearing. Her name appears on charge 2.
178. When she asked for special leave, the Employee commented to her that if she could still bear a child, then she could bear one for him.
179. She was not comfortable with the fact that the Employee said to her he would have to kill her husband so that he could be with her, and that did not seat well with her at all, and at the end, she reported the same comments to her husband.
180. The issue of the Employee asking to wipe her private part happened after he had said the comments about killing her husband.
181. The Employee was embarrassing her in front of her colleagues, on this day, they were signing to knock out and she then asked her that she would not be able to be on time in the following day, because she had to go to attend a parents meeting at the school of her child, and she showed him the letter inviting her to the school. She was in the admin office at the time.
182. The fact that the Employee said to her, because she still had a child at the primary school, meant she could bear a child for him embarrassed her. She was not in a relationship with the Employee.
183. Although she could no longer remember the year and the month, there was something that came out of the newspaper about the Employee. She normally buys a newspaper in the morning and when she bought it, she saw the article and if she remembers well, it was in the front page. It so happened that her other colleagues also saw it.
184. That is what led to the union being called and the Employee expected to explain himself. What is in the article was a lot, and it did not make her colleagues happy. On her side, she had reported the comments of the Employee to her husband.
185. The matter proceeded and there was a confusion regarding the Employee and the staff at the school, which led to the MEC for Education being called to the school. She is one of those who expressed her feelings in the meeting convened by the MEC, which is that she was not well at the school because of the things being done or said by the Employee. Other educators also raised their own concerns. The other processes started and that led to her signing the statement.
186. They were opposite the deputy principal’s office when the Employee told her to go and clean his house and it was just the time when they were knocking off from work. During that time, Mr Dlamini and Mr Shabalala were also present. She felt embarrassed that as a mother and a wife, the Employee saw her as someone whould could go and clean his own house.
187. When they were in the Employee’s house before, in a staff party, she cleaned his house. On the other day when he asked her to go and clean his house, that was not in a staff party. She has never been to the Employee’s house alone with him. this incident was before the one which the Employee asked to wipe her private part.
188. Contained in paragraph 4 of her statement is the incident in which she felt embarrassed by the Employee, as she was with children in the toilet, who are student teachers and the Employee asked to come to the toilet and wipe his private part.
189. She resorted to using the potty in the classroom because it was not safe to go to the toilet and that saved her from going down to the toilet, because the toilet was on the ground floor and her class was upstairs. She was running away from these remarks by the Employee which kept being made to her.
190. She related all these things to her husband, Mr Manzi and he was so angry such that he wanted to go to the school.
191. All the things she has written in her statement and again, testified on in the arbitration are true and are not part of any ploy of a group. She can stand alone for what she has said.
192. Cross examination – in 2013, she could not remember who was her departmental head, because it had been a long time. It could have been either Mr Govendor or Ms Dubazana. She was a NATU member, and the Employee belonged to SADTU. Her relationship with the Employee were never good, but she did not hate him.
193. The Employee has never been her departmental head. There was some misunderstanding between Shabalala and the Employee, since they belonged to different unions.
194. For her not to have dates, is because she can no longer remember them. She wrote the statement before going to the disciplinary hearing. She could not remember when did she attend the disciplinary hearing.
195. When they had a braai in the Employee’s house, they cooked in the kitchen and she was with Ms Dlamini. She is no longer sure whether Ms Nxumalo was also in the kitchen, other educators were sitting in the lounge and others were outside.
196. Put to him that by November 2015, when they were in the Employee’s house, her allegation that the Employee had threatened to kill her husband was already made, she denied and said the party was before such threats.
197. She could not recall the date in which the threat to kill her husband was made. It was in 2016 when the threats were made and she was in the admin office when the Employee made the threats. She did not mention the year and the place in her statement. The issue of the threat is not just her imagination.
198. She did not know where the Employer got the months in the charge, in her own statement, she did not write the dates as she has said that she did not remember the dates and month. She did not give the Employer the month of March to July 2019, what she remembered is that she was estimating.
199. She could not remember when and how did she give the statement to Remcheron, but she wrote it and gave it to him.
200. She never said that the Employee asked her to go to the toilet, he asked him why did she not ask him to go and assist wipe her private part. She was in the toilet and the Employee said why did she not ask him to come and wipe her, so the person who wrote the statement used his or her own words.
201. The Employee was dismissed because of the sexual harassment allegations. She remembers the events, but she cannot remember the dates, that is all. She remembers the events that happened to her at the school.
202. She did not explain to the Employee that the child for whom she asked the special leave to go to the meeting was her grand child or not, all she said was that she was going to a meeting for her child. For him to say that meant she could still bear a child for him was disrespectful to her. She is not sure of the year, but the child was in grade 2 at the time and by 2025, she is in grade 7.
203. The Employee never proposed love to her. The incident in which the Employee asked to go and wipe her private part only happened once. The other times are when the Employee would make unwelcome remarks.

The Employee’s case
The Employee testified as follows: –

204. He has a Diploma, Senior Primary Teachers, ABET, and certificates in Human Resources, certificate in Project Management. He did the Teachers Diploma at Mpumalanga College, Hammersdale and ABET with UNISA.
205. He started working in 1992 at Sompukwane Secondary School which is based at Intsimbini under Umbumbulu circuit until 1997. He then went to the Univ of Durban-Westville to study music in 1997 he then went back to teaching in 2005 at Margot Fornteyn High School at Klaarwater under Umlazi district. He did not complete the music degree. He stayed for one year at Margot and went to Claremont at Zakhele Primary School from 2006, where he then left in 2010.
206. In 2011, he went to teach at Ichanga Primary School, where he was the departmental head from 2011 to 2012, for 2 years. In 2013, he got a transfer as the Departmental head to Mariannpark Primary school. When he started in Marrianhill, Mrs Priscila Naidoo was the principal of the school.
207. On p 77: If one looks at the arrow that says DH office, he would like to utilise the page together with p73. On p73, the door with white steel is the DH office, but he was not using it. On p77: the door with white arrow is for toilets, if one proceeds through the passage, there is a males’ toilets. His office was next to the DH office, but it was directly opposite to the males’ toilets.
208. There were two offices: the DH office and his office which was adjacent to it. When he arrived, the DH office was written sick-room. It became an office after Mrs Dubazane wanted to utilise it, and by that time, he was no longer utilising the office, as he had already been promoted.
209. He was promoted in 2015 and started as the Acting Dep principal. He was promoted in the same year, after June. He then moved across, where there is an office of the deputy principal.
210. On p73 – there is a white arrow written DPs office, that is the office he was occupying as the Dep Principal. He acted for three months in 2017, when the principal was away. The principal then retired in January 2018. When he was acting in 2017, there were posts available for deputy principal and hod, that is when Mr TT Dlamini was appointed as the Dep principal.
211. Because there were two deputy principals when the principal retired, there was the need for interviews to appoint an acting principal. He was then appointed in April 2018 as an acting principal.
212. When the Principal ship post was advertised, he and Dlamini applied, were interviewed and in June 2018, he succeeded. He then worked, waiting for the letter that was going to appoint him permanently. The letter arrived in October 2018 and he then worked as a full time principal.
213. He knew the complainants as they are all cited in the six charges (6th charge in employer bundle, page 93. When he arrived, Buthelezi, Ngubane and Mkhwanazi were not yet at the school. Ms Mthethwa arrived almost at the same time as him at the school, with one week apart, and she was a grade R teacher and she was an intern. VN Dlamini fell under him as he was her HOD. They had a good relationship such that they ate together. Mthethwa also joined them, but they were not eating together with her. But because he was the first black person to be the principal at the school, having taken from a female principal, and also that he had a car, it was normal for the teachers to ask for a lift. Also, he liked meat a lot, so they had the tendency of going out to eat meat in a butchery that was not far from the school. Both Mthethwa and DLamini, Gama Dubazana are people whom he was close with and used to eat meat with.
214. Manzi was at the school when he arrived. He found the school with 3 unions: SADTU, NAPTOSA AND NATU. Manzi was Natu’s leader at the time. Since he arrived as SADTU, it was not nice to Manzi and she did not want him. Even when he was the deputy principal, the departmental heads were reporting to separate deputy principals, and when she was supposed to submit, she would do so to a deputy principal whom was not the correct.
215. He went to NATU leader who was a principal in a school in which he was feeding, as a primary school, Mr S Molefe. He asked Molefe for intervention but things did not change. His relationship with Manzi only became better after Dlamini and Shabalala were appointed, and the two were NATU members. The other reason for her not to like him would be that he recruited 70% of staff to SADTU, such that she was left alone with NATU.
216. Manzi was a hard worker whom when given work, would do it thoroughly. When he became the principal, he would give her work since she was in charge of nutrition, and their relationship became better.
217. After he was appointed as the principal, it did not become well between Dlamini, Shabalala and himself. Dlamini was the deputy principal and Shabalala was the departmental head. In terms of NATU structure, Shabalala was senior to Dlamini. Shabalala once arrived to him about a week or two after he received his appointment letter, and congratulated him. Shabalala said he was doing that because he was the observer and that there was no way that Dlamini would have defeated him in the interviews. He proceeded and said they tried everything as a union, including the hit man and traditional healers. Shabalala then said, when everything failed, it became clear that the position was meant for him (Employee). He indicated that he was aorried about Dlamini, whom until that point, was not accepting that he was defeated. Shabalala said as a union had no issues with the Employee.
218. Dlamini was saying to him (Shabalala) no matter how long it took for him to achieve what he wanted, he gets it at the end. Shabalala said he was happy, he could see that the Employee had worked well for the school: built a class room and a computer lab, and it would be difficult for him (Employee) to be defeated.
219. They continued to work well at the school. Before the article in the bundle, they and just been visited by a school from Escourt on 30 August 2019. Just because it was nice, the female teachers even played netball with teachers from Zamukuthula school, from Escourt.
220. The Monday after that, he decided to entertain the teachers, he bought meat (mutton) and they cooked and braa the rest, and Manzi was one of the cookers. As he left the school, Mr Mazibuko, the sgb Chair blocked him with his vehicle and told him that he must leave the school because the teachers don’t want him. Mazibuko said he had found someone who would shoot Ngubane and wants R 10 000, he (Employee) refused. Mazibuko then said he must look out for himself. He asked Mazibuko, how is it possible that the same teachers he had just had meat with don’t want him.
221. Then on 03 Sept when asleep, he about 02h00, he looked at the footage and noted that two cameras were facing upwards one which was further from the door was the only one that was still in the correct position. The one camera then showed him that there were four men at the door: 2 were black people and the other 2 – he does not know whether they were pakistans or colourds, but they were not black. One of them was carrying a butcher knife, one of the non-blacks had a gun.
222. That was when he realised that Mazibuko was correct. As written in the article, he then pressed the panic button and the four people ran away. The article came out on the next Sunday, probably the 7th of September.
223. On the Monday after the article was out, he was at school. He reported the incident to Mr Nzama, Circuit Manager, and Mr Mahlambi, the spokesperson of the department education, and that was before the article was out. He was trying to get direction as to whether he should go to school or not. Mahlambi said he was going to speak with Dr Nzama, the HOD of the province. Mahlambi told him to open the case, protect himself and then go to school.
224. When he went to school, everything was well. He called a meeting and informed the teachers about what had happened. He told them that the people who had come to kill him, their purpose was to enter inside the house, because the person who jumped the fence, started by checking if his car was present and when he saw it, he lifted his thumbs and called the others, also, since he has an aluminium door with side windows, the glass was already taken off and one of them had removed his shoes, which were left behind. This he sees as a means to walk quietly inside.
225. He told them that it was not normal for people who don’t know the house, to know where the bedroom. When they combined what was in the article and the above, they then said he said it was someone who knews him.
226. On Monday, the staff held meetings which he was not invited to, and then stopped going to school on the following day. They did not tell him the reasons for not coming to school. It was not all of them who did not come to school. He heard from parents that the teachers said they were not coming to school because they could not stay with someone who survived an attack.
227. He heard that they started by going to the circuit office, and then went to open a case at Marinapark Police station. He heard from the detective that the case was for threat/intimidation, as they said they know his bedroom, so if he says he suspects that it was someone who knew his bedroom, he meant them. What shocked him was that Dlamini was also part of them and he does not know his house.
228. After that, a series of meetings were held, trying to resolve the matter. Perhaps one meeting where they sat with the director for the whole day, held in one of the classes at the school, where there was a leadership of SADTU from the region and the branch. The meeting was about attempts for the teachers to come back to school. The teachers then put their demands, and one demand that started the noise more than the others was that they called a meeting and he did not attend it.
229. He informed them that no one invited him to the meeting, because the person they sent spoke with Dlamini and told Dlamini that he (Employee) was wanted in the meeting. This matter was then settled.
230. The second issue, they were saying he must withdraw the article which came out in Isolezwe because it implicates them. The matter starts by citing reliable source (on page 10-4th par – umthombo othembekile), they said that source was him. he denied that and they insisted.
231. On the same Monday after the incident, Manzi said she was stopped by people and asked her why do they want to kill the principal. So they wanted him to withdraw the article and apologise and tell the journalist to do so. He refused as he did not know who that sources was.
232. He was then transferred to another school, where Mr Zulu, a SADTU leader was a principal. They advised him to go and serve as a displaced person at the SADTU chair school, when he refused, saying as his union, he expected it to look at the fact that he was attacked. They then said if he refused, the teachers will end up saying he must be charged with school finance matters because they no longr want him, and once he is charged with finances, he would not succeed. He left them and asked for sometime.
233. On the following day, as he arrived at school, the learners were in the class rooms, after he got an advice from the police, not to have a straight time of arriving and leaving the school. When he entered the school, Manzi would blow the whistle and the teachers would release the learners. That led to parents getting involved as the learners were no longer getting taught.
234. In the meeting referred to above, the department was not present. It was in the school, but in a different office.
235. There was a parents meeting first at the school (as reflected on page 22 – A). Then Nkosi requested a meeting with concerned teachers. As he said that there were a series of meetings, this was another meeting where the demands stated on pg 23 (bottom three) were raised in another meeting which he was not party to. But these demands were raised by SADTU, and they led to the meeting they held in a classroom, when the teachers said they can go back to teaching, if they met these demands.
236. After these meetings between the department, parents and teachers, it was decided that the er must send a delegation that was going to look at some of the allegations, because even him, as the principal was not safe. As the time went on, after he refused to retract the article, the teachers did not go back to the school. An investigation was done.
237. Since this issue happened when they were about to close the school for the third term, when the schools opened, the teachers did not come to the school. The next meeting was attended by Mr Mthalane from the MEC office, who told them that there would be a meeting which will be attended by the MEC.
238. He thinks the reason for that was the outcome of an investigation by the district, which recommended that the teachers be charged. They then held a meeting, which was the first one after the one in which they told him to withdraw the article. He was not involved in the other meetings. The meeting included the MEC, Mr Kwazi Mshengu, teachers, parents.
239. At that meeting which was in a computer lab, directly opposite the principal’s office, was chaired by the MEC. The MEC requested the department to read the reports that were compiled after the investigations. Ms Nkosi did, followed by Kheswa. When the meeting started, the teachers were not present, only the unions will be. The MEC said he did not believe that teachers would stop teaching after he heard the reports, and asked him to call them to join the meeting.
240. He called them inside and when they entered, they said they wanted to speak in his absence. The MEC asked him to excuse himself and emphasised that he would be called to give his story. That never happened, after some time, he saw the MEC leaving the meeting.
241. As he was seating in front of the Principal’s office, since there were journalists present, he heard the MEC telling the journalists that there were sexual harassment allegations which would be followed through. This shocked him and he recorded the MEC.
242. One of the teachers told the MEC that he had said he would speak to him, the MEC then asked that he be called. He (Employee) then came in and as the teachers were preparing to sit down,the MEC told him that there would be investigations regarding sexual harassment allegations and as of that time, no one will be out of work. The MEC then left. He could not recall the date of the meeting with the MEC, but it was in October 2019.
243. During the disciplinary hearing, the Employer denied him legal representation, since he did not want SADTU to represent him because it was behind the whole thing. He then asked Mr W Molefe, the former principal of Nilgiri secondary school to represent him as a colleague.
244. Regarding charge 1, by July 2013, he was the departmental head. In Jan 2015, he was still in the same position and started to act as the deputy principal in May 2015. Mthethwa was not under the school, she was in Early Child Development (ECD) as an intern. The ECD is not an establishment of the school, even when coming to reporting, he had nothing to do with her as he was responsible for grades 6-7.
245. The allegation by Mthethwa is a lie: firstly he had work to do, he was teaching, supervising the teachers and also involved in sports, she was not working nearer to his office, there were cctv cameras. Those made them not to meet regularly. Secondly, as the toilets are displayed in the pictures, there is no way that he would have seen when one goes to the female’s toilets. There is no way he would have known when she wants to go to the toilet, because she puts it in such a way that he would go to her to go to the toilet. Further, they travelled together, so he would have had plenty of time to do that, and not as alleged.
246. Mthethwa’s statement: I am not sure with the date, but it continued continuously, I would go to the toilet around 12h30, the sees her through the glass door, seating in his office” this is the principal’s office when he would see her.
247. There was nothing that brought him to the principal’s office when he was the departmental head. In those days, he was in the departmental head office, and she said he was in the principal’s office, which does not make sense.
248. Mthethwa’s testimony that it was in July 2013 when he started to harass her is a mistake when coming to the year. When he arrived at the school, she was there and she left, and she then came back again. When she was permanently appointment, she had finished, and she was employed in another area. During that year, there was a pressure and the parents had requested that the classes be increased in numbers. They committed to bring down the change rooms was.
249. After that, the school requested for more teachers in 2016, as it had enough space. At that time, since they knew her, they made recommendation for her to come to the school on a permanent basis.
250. It is correct that the charge was incorrect. It is correct that around August 2015, he took Mthethwa to Spur. He remembered her entering his office, joyful and told him that that day was her birthday. He stood up and congratulated her, and asked whether someone was taking her out, as he knew that she had a boyfriend who was a policeman. She said it was a boring day because nothing was happening. She asked him to take her out, and he agreed as he normally go somewhere to eat so that he does not cook at home. she suggested Spur and they went there.
251. He was not eating together with Mthethwa, he was eating with Dlamini. There was no quarrel that had taken place between him and Mthethwa. He thinks may be she was brave or weak, because this thing came from her when the accusations were made, that he should be charged. During her testimony, she also said nothing had happened between them that was not right, as she can be seen with him in the pictures. So he saw this as part of the story that was created just for him to be charged.
252. During the disciplinary hearing, they never said anything regarding what he would have benefited from wiping their private parts.
253. Mthethwa once came to his house when they were having a yearend party, after the black educators at the school asked him to have the party in his house, as he stayed alone at the time. The educators included Mthethwa, Manzi, Gama, Buthelezi, Mkhwanazi, Dubazana and Ms Mungwe. They wanted to go to his house and continuing enjoying themselves and drink liquor.
254. He does not drink alcohol. At his house, they sat in the lounge, drinking alcohol, as the time went on, they said they were hungry, since he had meat in the house, they agreed that he was going to grill it in the oven. Manzi, whom he knew also not drinking alcohol at the time, offered to cook porridge. That is what happened and they continued drinking.
255. On charge 2, when he arrived at the school, Manzi was already a teacher at the school. After the arrival of Shabalala and Dlamini at the school, his relationship with Manzi became cordial.
256. The allegations raised by Manzi, just like the rest of the Employer’s witnesses started during the meeting held by the MEC. As he was suspended in November 2019, when 3 months ended in February 2020, he requested clarity regarding his suspension since he needed to go back to school. The Employer told him to wait for a day or two. That is when these charges appeared where the Employer, Ramcheron asked the teachers to write the statements. It does not amaze him that they wrote the same things. This happened after all the investigations had been concluded by the Employer. So he saw these allegations as something that was told to the teachers by someone else, to write.
257. Regarding Manzi’s accusation that he said she could still carry a child for him, early in 2019, they were called by the Employer and were told that they were very lenient on granting leave. He went back to the school and informed the teachers. So when she went to him requesting to accompany the child, he started by asking her where was the child’s parents, because he knew that that was not her child. She said the child’s parent was not taking care of it. She then laughed and asked if the child was her’s what was wrong with that. He told her that he knew that the child was actually a grandchild, not hers and that was the only thing that contained the child in their discussion.
258. It is a lie to say he wanted to kill her husband, there was nothing at all during their conversation or at anytime that would have suggested that he had an interest in her. It may be that she did not know that he had no interest in her. Also, as a man, he never thought that if he wanted someone, he would need to kill a husband to have them, also they had never talked about love, which she would have responded by saying she had a husband, further, it is a crime to kill someone.
259. He did not know why did she shut up all these times, hence he saw this allegation as part of the Employer forcing them to implicate him. Even her husband in his statement said he did not know until when he was asked to write a statement.
260. In the disciplinary hearing, Mhlanga said she saw him standing at the toilet’s door with a toilet paper at hand, in the arbitration, she said she shouted for the toilet paper first. Mhlanga is now employed at the school, when she came to testify, she was a student teacher. At the school, there were about 20 student teachers, and he could not even remember who Mhlanga was. It is clear now that they had cooked the story to say he was inside the toilet, which Manzi must have forgotten during the arbitration, as she said he was not inside and she did not know where he was.
261. As the principal, he had nothing to do with the toilets. Also, the cleaners are not nearer the toilets, so Mhlanga could not have shouted for the toilet paper. The cleaners clean during the morning, and after that, move to the classes. So a person would have known that no matter how hard one can shout, no one could have heard.
262. Also, there is no way he could have seen her going to the toilet, for him to follow her. Further, the Head of Department’s office, where Dubazana sat, because it is small, and it is hot, is always open. So there is no reasonable person who would have just shouted, without knowing who was in the office. In addition, there were cameras at the school.
263. All these issues make him to believe that these allegations are all manufactured, with Mhlanga’s interest being a permanent appointment. If he starts where he started when he was told that he was no longer wanted at the school, also there was the murder attempt, when all that failed, the teachers stopped working, and Manzi was the leader who would blow the whistle so that children should go out, it may happen that they then decided to formulate the sexual harassment allegations because they (allegations) were serious and could lead to his dismissal.
264. Even though he and Manzi had a cordial relationship, she still was not fond of him, hence these allegations. This also started from Dlamini, whom he defeated in the interviews for the principal ship position and Dlamini was close to Manzi. All these allegations, as some go back to 2013, only arose after the attempt to kill him failed. And some allegedly started during the period when the principal was a female which would have been easy to report to. This clearly was made by the teachers solely for the purposes of having him dismissed.
265. When he was the principal, he was teaching only the natural sciences, because he was not working properly with Dlamini, as a result, his work load was too much as he was not able to delegate to Dlamini. It is surprising to say he had time to seat and wait for female teachers going to the toilet, the teachers knew that he also had the ability to fix pipes and the school’s handyman, Lucky (the handyman) knew that the school had water challenges. So on top of being the manager at the school, he was always up and down, to make things to be workable for the teachers. There was also the SA sams (SA Schools Administration Management System – the education system) in which he would also be called whenever there are challenges. The system contains all the details of the learners and teachers.
266. Even the school clerk when she had problems with SA SAMS, would report to him. Also, the door to his office had a burglar guard and it was locked, he was using the secretary’s door and then go through to his office, as such, he could not just leave the office without being noticed.
267. On charge 3, Ms VN Dlamini was one of the educators, who sometimes acted as the departmental head, she is the one whom he said they were close and ate together. She had resigned from the Employer and is no longer working.
268. On count 1: around June 2014, during winter, when he was still the head of department, Ms Dlamini came to his house. It happened one day as they were seating together, eating, he suggested that he needed to have different food the next day. She also said she loved it (lamb curry), and he said he was going to cook it, they had some arguments and ended up with her saying she was the one who was going to come to his house to cook it. That was food that he was going to carry for lunch in the next day, not to eat on that day. At that time, they stayed in the same area and shared the same Pick n Pay shop. They agreed that he would go home and she would start at Pick and Pay.
269. Ms Dlamini was five years older than him. Also, one other thing that made her to get close to him, was that she though he was Nkosi-Dlamini, which is common in some people with Nkosi as the surame, so they started the relationship as a brother and sister. Upon her arrival in his house, she asked him not to be present in the kitchen as she cooked the curry., and he went to seat on the lounge.
270. When the food was ready, she dished for him and herself, they sat on the lounge, ate and finished. She did not seat for long after finishing eating, she then left. They then met at the school the following day and had the same food. When she came to his house, she was using her vehicle.
271. He has never said anything of a sexual nature to her, even his relationship with her was good. She learned about these issues relating to her for the first time during the disciplinary hearing, the manner in which these were not making sense, he was sometimes laughing, asking himself how can such things happen. He did not even think that these could lead to his dismissal.
272. Another thing, when someone is seated on a couch, wearing a skirt, how could one attempt to penetrate her, because what is nearer to you are the knees. He has never had that a man can attempt to penetrate someone who is just sitting down in a couch, without pressing them down. This was one the things that made him to see that the Employer was just looking for anything that may lead to his dismissal. The other thing is that he saw that she made it an attempted rape, yet their relationship continued usually at school, until he was charged.
273. She explained that she had a panty, tight and skirt. She never said that he handled her in any way, except that she said he stood in front of her, lowered his pants, while she sat down without changing her position. She also said she pushed him when he came closer to her and she then left the house. He is amazed at that because the next day, they sat together and ate lunch, and five years later, she lays these allegations.
274. On the alternative count – he did not remember evidence being led on this charge as a stand alone in the disciplinary hearing. He first knew Ms Dlamini when she was staying in New Germany, he knew where she stayed, also in Caversham where she stayed, he had been to her house and when her car was out for service, he was the one who would pick her up to school. So it cannot be that when he agreed to her coming to cook in his house, that was him luring her, when it was her who made the suggestion.
275. Regarding charge 3 – count 2, Ms Dlamini was naughty, she once sent him a video of people having sex, and he cautioned her. One day, he was standing with SADTU chair in the parking, she offered to show her breast to the SADTU chair, Mr Zungu. But for her to say he sent her the pictures, that is a lie. In the disciplinary hearing, she came with Gama, who was a site steward, and Gama in her testimony said Ms Dlamini was lying, that picture came with her (Gama). He then recalled that Gama came with the same picture when she was still applying for the job and she told him that SADTU was fighting him, he asked how, and she then opened the cell phone and showed him, saying it was circulating around. He was very much shocked to hear that he was found guilty of this charge, when Dlamini’s own witness said she (Dlamini) was lying.
276. He cannot say that he thinks the reasons he mentioned above for all these charges are just his thinking, he is certain of them. Ms Dlamini, after he failed to get the post of deputy principal, such that she lodged a grievance which went to the district. Because of that, he was no longer eating with her, and their relationship was no longer the same. The post of deputy principal was given to Dubazana, the interview committee had agreed that they wanted a person who had a management experience. Dlamini was complaining, although she was a post level 1 teacher and Dubazana was the head of department. That is what encouraged her to be one of the people who wanted him dismissed. At the end, she decided to resign. So he has no doubt that these allegations were a fight back by her.
277. Coming to charge number 4 count 1: Ngubane was a post level 1 educator, she started teaching for the first time at the school. She was employed to replace Mrs Z Letlaka, who had resigned. Naidoo wanted to replace her with an Indian lady. It took a long time without finding a teacher, because as the head of department, he was not fond of employing a person who is not black to teach isiZulu. After sometime, Naidoo called him to the office and she was with Ngubane. Naidoo told him that the Employer has brought Ngubane for isiZulu, she (Naidoo) was not happy at all, because her (Ngubane’s) command of English was very bad.
278. Naidoo then had asked what else can Ngubane do, she said she could be involved in choral music. Naidoo then asked her if she knew the him (Employee) and she said no, Naidoo told her that she was lying. She left her with the him and that was when he discovered that she was working in a firm, and had studied through UNISA. He accepted that she be offered the opportunity to teach and that is how she was employed. She was reporting to him as the head of department. This was around mid 2014.
279. She was staying at Empola and he was staying chevischen Glen, if one goes to Mpola from the school, the taxi would drop one near the police station. When he drives to the school, he would also drive through the road that goes through Nazareth, after the bridge, there is a t-junction, he would turn right which could either lead to Mpola or Entshongweni. There is a stop around the area and he would sometimes find her at that area, and he would lift her. Sometimes after school, she would ask him to give her a lift and he would drop her at the same spot.
280. The incident as per the charge never happened. He was driving a BMW X5, the area which she is referring to, is near the police station which is opposite the train station. That place is an open area and is used by people who are exercising, and those who are learner drivers. That is why when she said it is secluded, he was surprised because that is a busy place.
281. Despite that not being true, on that day, he took her to her home, because the weather appeared as if it was going to rain. He is surprised when the charge says he forced himself on top of her, and tried to tough her private parts through her skirt. Even if that would have happened, in a BMW X5, that cannot happen, because the space in between the driver and the passenger is higher and the seats are lower, which would have required him to jump over to her side. If she was seating upright, it would not even be possible for him to arrive at her private part, if that is the private part that he is thinking of.
282. Further, they were no longer in good terms with her, hence he is not shocked by these allegations, but one thing to note, even after what she alleged, she continued asking lifts from him, which surprised him that after such an abuse, she was not scared to ask for the lift again. He cannot speak about the attempted sexual intercourse, because a man with a big body as he was, when he is expected to jump to another seat, in a car which has seats that require electrical knobs to be lowered, which takes time, so it is impossible to have done that. At that time, he was weighing around 120 kilograms.
283. Regarding count 2, except to be misunderstood as being insensitive, he did not know her as one who had a husband, but had the father of her kids. His young brother died in March 2016 and was buried on the same day as the date in which the father of her kids was buried. So much that the staff had to be split to attend the two funerals. He was shocked that after he had known her for a long time, and now that boyfriend had passed on, he would use that as an advantage to propose to her.
284. He divorced in 2014, at the time, he had no child, the child he had was born in Feb 2016. That alone means he would not have been excited to have a relationship with another person, because he was still having a relationship with someone else, also, he was still in mourning state (ezilile), so he would not utilise the opportunity to tell her that he loved her, because of the bereavement, when he had known her for long, not knowing that she was married.
285. Now when he looked at the charges, he realised that there must have been some discussions with Manzi, as also the presiding officer in the disc hearing “page 56, par 4.23.7 where the presiding officer said “It is agreed the corroboration of testimony by victims by other persons may make it seem that testimony could have been rehearsed, biased, manufactured or otherwise made too pat to ensure that Mr Nkosi is nailed. On the other hand, there is no evidence of this and the gaps in Mr Nkosi’s defence do not make this viable conclusion….” This said that the Employer’s evidence was written on the same day and has similarities and commonalities. What made Ngubane to cry after the death of her partner, he found her at the staff room, crying, he then went to Mrs Naidoo and informed her.
286. Naidoo called another female teacher and they went to her, after that, they accompanied her home. Naidoo later informed him that Ngubane was crying because her partner had died.
287. It is also surprising that all the people who have later made these allegations, are people with whom he lived well, they allege that these incidents happened, yet after that, they would continue to live normally, everything being right and still go and do things together, now, they went back a number of years and list things that he did, when he was not even the principal. Even the union people testified that there was no one who came to report, hence he sees this as just a plot that was cooked to have him dismissed.
288. On count 3 – That has never happened at all. Zinhle had a back problem and was not able to seat well, let alone to stand. Naidoo used to say to him he knew many things, so she called him to the office to assist, through the doctor whom he had once charted with her about. She was like instructing him to take Ngubane to the doctor. He had once had a similar challenge with another teacher in 2012, who had his back bent and could no longer be straight, and that is what made him to believe that Ngubane will also be assisted by the doctor.
289. He then spoke with Gama about Ngubane, and since Gama did not have a car, she asked that when he was coming to town, he should give them a lift. That happened about a day or two later. He remembers Gama saying Ngubane almost fell down. Ngubane became well.
290. On one day, whilst he was with Mazibuko, Ngubane came walking well and Mazibuko asked if she was well, and she said yes, he (Employee) assisted her, she also demonstrated that she had recovered. Mazibuko told her to bend and touch her toes, she did, and she then left.
291. He does not know how did bending and touching her toes had anything with bending on the bed. Ngubane had become a site steward after Gama, and she was rude. He was no longer able to do anything at the school as a principal. In one incident when he had an induction with student teachers, Ngubane came and opened the door and asked “what is this meeting which she did not know anything about”.
292. The other time, when he was in a meeting with SGB members, with Ms Nxumalo, the SGB member who represented the teachers, Ngubane arrived and spoke with Nxumalo (whispering), when he asked Ngubane what did she want, Ngubane told him that he had nothing to do with it.
293. He then told Ngubane to go and tell the head of department, she refused and said that was not her job and she left. He was very angry and he called the director, who suggested that he take her out to mend the relationship and also to charge her. In the process of charging her, after a while, around 25 August 2019, the lady from SACE came. Since she came unexpectedly, he drove out to look for something to eat for the lady, as he stood at the robbots, a truck got into his vehicle. He then reported the accident to the school, he heard that Ngubane ululated and said the truck should have driven him to the river. That shocked him because there is a river next to the area, and he did not even mention the area. So he suspected witchcraft.
294. That is how bad things had turned between him and her. She was also accusing him of being strict at school, since she was a late comer on a regular basis. So when the opportunity was presented at the school, to have him dismissed, that was not suprising.
295. His life then with respect to Ngubane made him to expect anything, such that she did not hide that she was advised by a person from SACE to find anything against him, as a counter charge. Ngubane would have said anything, as long as it would assist to have him dismissed from the school.
296. He would like to say, even now, after so many disruptions that happened at the school, after the attempt to kill him, all the investigations done by the Employer and the reports, there is nothing that links to the allegations laid against him. As a person who represented the Employer at the school, he expected the MEC, when coming to the school, to hear his side of the story, but that did not happen.
297. After the disciplinary hearing presided by Mabaso, he made it clear that he wanted to appeal against the finding, he wanted the transcripts of the disciplinary hearing and that was not given to him, but the MEC wrote a letter and agreed with the decision, without hearing his side and not put his version for the MEC to apply his mind. So the MEC endorsed a one sided decision.
     Ms Sibongile Tracy Nkosi (Nkosi)testified on behalf of the Employee as follows –
298. She is the Acting District Director – Pinetown. In 2019, she was the Chief Education specialist for Umhlathuzana CMC. The school falls under the CMC.
299. She became aware of the disruptions at the school after they were reported to her, in September 2019. She conducted investigations, went to the school to find out what happened and the prepared a report, which is on pa 0-24 of A. She prepared the report for Employee Relations and the Director at the time, Mr SNL Kheswa. She signed the report.
300. In terms of her findings, although she may not remember everything, the issue happened after there was an article in Isolezwe, talking about an incident that had taken place in the Employee’s house, where people came to his house carrying guns, etc. All what happened at the school then started as a result of that. In her meeting with the staff at the school, the staff were raising the issue of safety, saying they were not safe, also making demands such as that the article must be retracted and the Employee must apologise to them, because in the very same article there was a caption that said inkabi or whoever, was alleged to be at the school. That means, whoever wrote the article put suspicions to the school.
301. The Employee was saying he did not write the article and it is not possible for him retract that. Then there was an arrangement between the department, educators and SADTU. In that meeting, that is when they raised the issues as captured on pg 22, which are –
     301.1 Their safety at the school,
     301.2 The dividing of the staff by the Principal,
     301.3 The investigation of one educator by SACE without knowledge of the site,
     301.4 The educators being undermined by the Principal,
     301.5 Issues of infrastructure, sanitation and water in the school,
     301.6 The none implementation of HRM 41 of 2012 by the school and the SMT,
     301.7 The non-teaching of NS and English in certain grades,
     301.8 The granting of leave without pay even if educators have reported,
     301.9 The budget of the school which they don’t know,
     301.10 The allegation that there were only three people running the school.
302. The educators alleged that the Employee and two others were running the school. They then made resolutions on how to proceed, those are the points at the bottom –
     302.1 That full investigation be done, this should also include Financial Investigation,
     302.2 Infrastructure sub-directorate to attend to issues relating to infrastructure and sanitation,
     302.3 TLS-GET to go to the school urgently,
     302.4 The CMC to engage SAPS, CPF, Crime Intelligence on the issue of safety,
     302.5 Circuit Manager to monitor the implementation of HRM 41 of 2012,
     302.6 Governance and Management to do their own investigation on the non-functioning SGB.
303. Then there was a meeting chaired by the MEC(Kwazi Mshengu) and his office, that is where the educators requested the Employee to be excused from the meeting. When he was excused, that is when issues of sexual harassment were raised, and there were a host of them. Subsequent to that, it came to the Employee being suspended.
304. When this matter started, there were no issues around sexual harassment, when she went to the school for investigations, there were no issues of sexual harassment raised. They were only raised in the MEC meeting, and those were serious issues, some talking about Employee following them to the toilet.
305. There was a meeting requested by the SADTU, at Voortrekker, she thinks that meeting was after the MEC’s meeting, and the staff continued to raise these issues in that meeting as well. The demands to the Employee were: the retraction of the article, apology and strengthened safety measures at the school.
306. She recommended that a full investigation be done, including on the finances of the school, as there were allegations of financial mismanagement, and educators taking leave without pay. Reasons were not making sense, when people were saying they could not come to the school for safety reasons, because the incident took place at Employee’s home, not at the school. If those hitmen wanted to go to the school, they would have done so.
307. The complaints then changed from what was the main issues that led to the investigations, and what then became top was now the sexual harassment allegations, which came out for the first time during the MEC’s meeting and in the SADTU meeting.
308. Before the incident, she had never received any report in relation to the Employee’s conduct. At some stage she once came to the school when there was a function regarding computer donations. The school at was one of the well run schools (that was in 2019) at the time, compared to now (2026).
     Mrs Thandekile Purity Dubazana (Dubazana) testified on behalf of the Employee as follows –
309. She is currently Deputy Principal at Nonopha Senior Primary School, under Pine Town disctrict, at kwa Santi. On January 2016, she came into the Marianhill school, as the departmental head for foundation phase (Gr R to 3).
310. When she arrived at the school some SMT members were: Mrs Priscila Naidoo – Principal, the Employee – Dep Principal, Mr Govendor – Dep Principal, Mrs Manzi hod and Ms Dlamini – hod. She did not see any problems, the relationship between the Employee and the staff were very good, she could see anything that was untoward. When they were in meetings, Naidoo would refer them to the Employee regarding the school issues for assistance, since he had contacts and was very helpful. Always, Naidoo would encourage them to go to him regarding professional or personal issues for assistance.
311. The Employee became the dep principal before Naidoo left, and she was also promoted to the deputy principal post in December 2019.
312. There was a school visit in September 2019, by a school from Escourt, for sport and they played some matches, everyone was participating, everyone was happy. After that, there was an article that came out in Isolwezwe, which started a big issue at school, because who ever read that article had their own interpretations. The teachers then felt that the Employee must apologise for the issues raised in the articles, after that, the educators did not want to remain in the classes, they would leave as soon as the Employee came to the school.
313. The educators would remain in the classes, and when the Employee came, Ms Zinhle Ngubane, as the leader would blow the whistle and educators would come out, and that took place for about 3 days, taking the learners to the field with them, so that they would abandon the classes.
314. They did that, saying they wanted the Employee to apologise to them for the issues raised in the article, and everything was a mess. Zinhle Ngubane was the chairlady of SADTU and is the one who was blowing the whistle. That took almost a week, with educators taking the kids out with them to the field. The issue proceeded and the educators then reported to the district, and abstain from coming to the school
315. When the educators leave the classes, she, Ms Mjilo and Ms Pinky Mdima would remain and try calm the learners, because you cannot abandon them, and there are those little ones and you cannot just leave them. She would go upstairs, engage them and try calm them down, the school was very big and they were moving around, trying to assist the learners. During that time, the teachers were only complaining about what appeared in the Isolezwe article.
316. She saw the educators in a meeting at the school, unfortunately she did not form part of it, because they were side-lined, just like they did not want the Employee in the meeting, but she saw people like Ms TG Gumede and Ms T Nkosi, also came to the school.
317. She was not in the meeting convened by the MEC. She was side-lined because the educators felt may be that she would take the information to the Employee or whatever, they don’t want them to know, they knew that she is a very straight forward person who would not allow them to do the false accusations. She would see that her name was excluded from the list that was circulated, inviting people to those informal meetings, and that is when she saw that she was side-lined.
318. Before the meetings, she heard that the meetings are then diverting from the article to accusations against the Employee, which surprised her because most of those people were very close to him, they even went out together with him, so it surprised her that they were now raising issues of sexual harassment.
319. Since her arrival at the school and as a member of the SMT, she never had anything regarding sexual harassment against the Employee. Only after the article did she hear in the corridors about sexual harassment issues against the Employee, and she would hear them throwing some words. Her office was net to the toilets, both males and female toilets.
320. As an example, Ms Mthethwa at some point had some professional challenges. As Mthethwa fell under her supervision, she would come to her and she would refer her to the Employee and she never said anything bad, she worked together with the Employee mostly, including organising a fair well of Naidoo which was very good. Mthethwa sometimes had challenges with her studies and she (witness) would refer her to the Employee for assistance, she never showed any negative feelings about that. They at some stage organised break away outside the school and they were all happy.
321. Ms Nomkhosi Buthelezi, another educator at the school, he was a new teacher, with no resources like money to come to work, they seemed to be neighbours with Employee and he would just fetch her to school, so he helped her a lot and she was appreciative of that assistance and never showed any ill feelings. (complainant on charge 5 – 1.2.3 and 4 and then she withdrew her participation)
322. Ngubane, the whistle-blower, when she (witness) came to the school, was very weak, complaining about her back, being in and out of the school. The Employee helped her to get assistance and she appreciated that such that she (Ngubane) said had he not assisted her by referring her on to where to go to get help, she would still suffer from her back. So she does not know when did the ee start to harass Ngubane.
323. After the Employee was suspended, things became very sour to her, such that when she assumed her duties, she was expected to give out instructions via departmental heads who were not willing to comply with anything that she said, such that Ms Dlamini took her to arbitration regarding the dep principal post, she was side-lined with everything she did, it was very difficult for her to perform her job, and they would just throw words when they pass her office and say “she must also go and follow Nkosi”, since her office was near the toilets.
324. The treatment was very bad, from the teachers such that she decided to leave the school, as she became no longer a teacher, and became a bully. She was no longer happy to be at the school, because she suffered for something that she did not know, simply because she refused to connive on things that she did not know. She would just see things happening without being informed.
325. This was done by many of the educators, even during the arbitration, half of the staff, including the departmental heads, testified against her, including Mr Govendor. After three years, she got an advice to take the arbitration to the SADTU, to complain about the bias by the regional chair against him, that was Mr Musa Zulu, as she was complaining that she was not being represented satisfactorily. SADTU advised them and Dlamini to resolve the matter, since they were both from the same union, and Musa asked them what she wanted, she told him that she wanted transfer out of the school, she then made a letter in December 2021 applying for a transfer, in less than a month, she got a response to move out of the school to where she is now.
326. She never participated in the visits and parties to the Employee’s house, but she heard about them as she used to share information with Manzi, since they were close, shared an office together since 2016 to 2019 when she was the departmental head. She moved out when she was appointed as the deputy principal, to the office next to the toilets.
327. During the three years they shared an office with Manzi, Manzi never told her anything untoward about the Employee, including sexual harassment. She left the school in December 2021 and assumed her duties in her current school in Jan 2022.
328. After the Employee left the school, the level of the school deteriorated, educators did not want to do work and comply with instructions, infrastructure collapsed, the science lab which was very good has become a store room for broken furniture. This really touched her heart. The computer room as well, when she left, there were just few of them remaining, whereas they had many computers before, all that he had worked for was just a joke afterward. Despite all these complaints against the Employee, her perception of him did not change, she knows the allegations are lies and he would never do that, he respects women. If those allegations were true, why would the educators wait for the article to come out before they could raise them?
329. Yes, for her to leave the school, that brings her bad emotions, every morning when she was going to work, she would try to chage the way she was because she needed to bully them, to retaliate to them which was changing her and for her to leave the school, she was trying to save herself and save her profession, because at times, by just looking at them, it would start boiling inside her.
     Mr Frederick Sibusiso Shabalala (Shabalala) testified as follows –
330. He is a principal of Tyburn Primary School in Chattsworth. In December 2016, he arrived at the Marrianhill Primary school, and he started his duties at the school in January 2017, as the departmental head for intermediate phase (grades 4, 5 and 6). At that time, the Employee was the dep principal and his immediate supervisor.
331. When he was interviewed for the post at the school, the Employee was the resource person, standing for the principal in the SGB because Naidoo was on leave.
332. When he arrived at the school, he was a NATU member, and the Employee was a SADTU. At the time, there were three NATU members, himself, Dlamini who assumed the job on the same date (as the dep principal), and Mrs Manzi. Dlamini is now the principal at the school. His relationship with the Employee was formal, business like, but he was closer to Dlamini. Because of the union affiliation, at school, they end up having a subtle animosity even though it may not be obvious.
333. His observation is that the Employee together with almost the rest of the educators, except the three who belonged to NATU felt that they were the odd ones or outcast. He left the school in May 2019 and by September 2019, he was no longer at the school.
334. Dlamini contacted him in 2019 about the school and staff having been summoned to Pinetown because of the article that was published in isolezwe, and Dlamini invited him to attend the meeting.
     He then attended the meeting.
335. He did not see the article, and he was pressed for time, while the whole staff members were still waiting to be addressed. The whole staff members were there, he even asked whether the school was not operational on that day, and Dlamini said the staff was afraid of their lives. He did not participate in the meeting.
336. A few weeks later, there was one subsequent meeting held at the Durban teachers centre. Again, he became aware of this meeting from Dlamini. Ramcheron addressed the meeting. He was present when he learned about staff members being aggrieved about things that were allegedly perpetrated against them by the Employee, which became a surprise to him.
337. When Ramcheron addressed them, before doing so, he (Ramcheron) mentioned that these allegations of sexual misconduct are very serious allegations, against the Employee, should anyone of them feel that they have a different feeling or do not agree with the rest that the Employee perpetrated sexual misconduct against the staff, they should raise it now, before they proceed.
338. He then raised his hand, to the surprise of the rest because he felt as he still feels, that those allegations were created. He informed them that he did not want to be part of that because he saw what was happening and did not like it. He then left. That day became the last day that Dlamini ever communicated with him. After that, Dlamini was not picking his phones.
339. He did not communicate with Manzi since that meeting as well. The only person who saw him in one of the meetings is Gama, who told him that she supported what he did, and said she should have stood with him because of the principled stand he took, when he told Ramcheron that he was not going to be part of a fabricated story against the Employee. So when these issues were raised, he could smell a rat. That meeting was about two or three weeks after the Pine town meeting.
     THE EMPLOYEE ARGUMENTS
340. On 31 October 2019, at a meeting held at the school Marian Park Primary, which was convened and chaired by the erstwhile MEC for Education Mr Kwazi Mshengu and attended by the Head Office staff, District Office staff including Ms Nkosi, the educators, SADTU BEC and the Employee once again could not again yield anything in resolving the stalemate, since the complaints of educators were already known as per the investigation that was conducted by Ms Nkosi.
341. The Employee was highly knowledgeable, had helpful connections and was helpful to all staff members that required his help as a result, Mrs Naidoo had encouraged staff members to seek the Employee’s help with work challenges and also relating to private problems. All the educators confirmed that the Employee was a goodhearted person, helps people without expecting anything in return and had in many ways gone out of his way to help all the educators at school, including those that were members of other unions;
342. At arbitration, the Employer abandoned their case on 12 February 2026, as per the letter of withdrawal as attorneys of record that was filed by Mr B. Hlela. However, before abandoning their case, the Employer had only called 5 out of the 11 witnesses for the period 2022 to 2026 January 20. Of the 5 witnesses that the Employer had called as usual and for the second time, Ms Nompumelelo Evidence Manzi abandoned the process and disappeared whilst she was still under cross-examination. The same thing had occurred previously before Commissioner Dubazane, where Ms Manzi also disappeared after giving evidence in chief and the matter was rolled over for cross-examination, as a result the Employee never cross examined her.
343. The admission of both the evidence of Manzi will be prejudicial to the Employee because it was never tested to the completion. As such, the Employee was denied the right to cross-examination.
344. Further, the Employer had called Ms Gama to give evidence in support of Ms N.V. Dlamini. Employee had objected to the evidence of Ms Gama on the basis that it was hearsay evidence, as she was a support witness for N.V. Dlamini, who was not called and indeed ended up not being called. In the circumstances, the evidence of Gama ought to be discarded, as it was meant to corroborate the evidence of Ms Dlamini who had never testified until the Employer abandoned their case.
345. In addition, with reference to Gama who testified and was cross-examined; however, her evidence was not original as she was not the complainant, Ms N.V. Dlamini was the complainant. The failure to call Ms N.V. Dlamini nullifies the testimony of Ms Gama.
346. he Employer severely delayed the arbitration proceedings and caused serious prejudice to the Employee, which prejudice cannot be compensated in monetary terms. The arbitration having commenced in 2022, the Employer failed to call any witness in 2022 due to the numerous postponements that the Employer was seeking and further in 2023, the Employer called only 2 witnesses and in 2024, it also called 2 witnesses and 1 witness in 2025, as Ms Manzi is discounted on the fact that she did not conclude cross-examination.
347. The Employer would call for inspection in loco to be conducted at the school at 8am however, the employer representative, Ramcheron, would tell the witnesses to leave the school and go to the arbitration venue as a result the Commissioner would then wait for those educators to come back, which took a long time and probably annoyed the Commissioners as they would subsequent to their inspection in loco, withdraw from the arbitration proceedings.
348. This conduct of the Employer resulted in Commissioner Pillay withdrawing from the matter which was first before him. Commissioner Pillay was then followed by Commissioner Dubazane who also withdrew after the inspection in loco and after having heard the evidence of Manzi, which witness was then warned to appear the following day for cross-examination which never took place.
349. Ramcheron called 3 witnesses from 2022 to 2024 before withdrawing from the part-heard matter and Mr Hlela took over, and the delaying tactics continued at an elevated level with Hlela only managing to call 2 witnesses from 2024 to 2026 before withdrawing as the attorney of record on 12 February 2026.
350. Mthethwa testified that she was a teacher at Marian Park Primary and she read her complaint made on 31 October 2019 into the record and stated that when she was going to the toilet by 12h30, the Principal would come out of the Principal’s office since he could see her through the glass door and ask to go to the toilet with her so that she could help her in the toilet by wiping her private part. She then organised a bucket that she was using to relieve herself in, in her classroom. She made her statement on 31 October 2019 and she submitted it to the SADTU BEC and not to the Department.
351. After that, Ms Mthethwa was laughing and cheerful during the cross-examination as she was singing the praises of the Employee as to how he had over the years taken her out on her birthday when nobody would have done so, how they went and partied with other educators at the Employee’s house and how she and the Employee organised a successful farewell for Naidoo in 2018 and she also testified to the sponsors that were obtained by the Employee. She further testified about the good nature of the Employee in taking her to McDonalds and other places.
352. Mthethwa further testified that she was peeing in the bucket simply because she was lazy to go to the toilet, because her classroom was too far from the toilets, not that she was afraid and/or avoiding the Employee.
353. In the premises, it became clear that the Employee was incorrectly found guilty in relation to this charge, since the complainant had under cross-examination further praised the Employee and never showed any hatred or fear of the Employee despite the allegations that she had written down on 31 October 2019.
354. Mhlanga was the support witness for Manzi; however, Manzi never finished her evidence under cross-examination as the Employer abandoned their case whilst she was still under cross-examination. Therefore, their evidence ought to be disregarded based on the fact that Manzi did not complete her evidence. Admission of Mhlanga’s evidence will be prejudice the Employee in that he did not fully cross-examine Manzi.
355. At the commencement of the cross-examination, Manzi contradicted Mhlanga’s testimony where Mhlanga said when she and Manzi went into the female toilets, they found the Employee inside the female toilets standing next to a basin and he came out and brought his own toilet paper giving to Manzi inside the toilet, and he then said to Manzi “Can I come inside with you so that I can wipe your private part”. Manzi then clicked her tongue, took the paper and walked away. Manzi on the other hand confirmed that the charge was wrong since she never saw the Employee when she was going to the toilet, and she did not even find the Employee inside the toilet as alleged by Mhlanga. Manzi said she shouted for the general workers to bring her a toilet paper and the Employee brought the toilet paper to her and he was outside the toilet and he never entered the toilet.
356. When the matter was adjourned, the Employee was still cross-examining Manzi on the contradictions, especially to the fact that Mhlanga had said Manzi clicked her tongue and Manzi had testified to the contrary that she never said anything.
357. Manzi further testified and confirmed under cross-examination that the Employee had never asked her or forced her to clean the Employee’s house. She disputed what was stated in the charge with specific reference to the dates that it was March 2019 to July 2019 as according to her even though she could not remember the dates, it was around 2015.
358. Nonetheless, the Employee persists that this evidence of Manzi and Mhlanga be discarded since it is incomplete.
359. Ngcobo was the support witness for Mkhwanazi, whose evidence related to Charge 6. It must be noted that the Employee was never found guilty for the allegations and evidence of the complaint by Mkhwanazi as per Charge 6, and the Executive Authority had never pronounced on Charge 6 as a result, charge 6 is not before the Commissioner since the Employee was not dismissed upon allegations or evidence based on it. In the circumstances, the evidence of Ngcobo ought to be discarded.
360. The Employee testified that he was close friends with all the witnesses and he used to share food with some of them during lunchbreaks, he would assist them with transport and with any other issues that they had. It is against that background that made it difficult for him to understand where these allegations came from.
361. Throughout the unlawful strike that the educators embarked on from16 September 2019, he engaged with SADTU BEC to discuss the issue and there were no allegations of any sexual nature that were levelled against him except for the issue in the article that they were accusing him of and which he had denied that he was the writer of the article and that he had any authority to withdraw the publication and the article. The SADTU BEC also told him that he was very strict and he needed to give the educators some break, something which he did not accede to.
362. The Employee had known Manzi in 2013 when he arrived at the school. She did not like the Employee specifically due to them belonging to two different unions, Manzi belonging to NATU and the Employee belonging to SADTU. Manzi also refused to be supervised by the Employee and as a result, he would be supervised by one of the Departmental Heads and not the Employee.
363. Ms Nkosi, testified that she did not believe that the Employee committed any sexual misconduct against the educators since if he had they would have told her in the many meetings she held with them and the SADTU BEC. In those meetings the Employee was not in attendance.
364. Dubazana denied that the Employee made any sexual advances to the complainants as alleged since she knew what type of a person the Employee was.
365. Shabalala, even though he belonged to a different union than that of the Employee but the Employee appointed him and Mr Dlamini as the Deputy Principal. Shabalala testified that during the meeting that was held in 2020 at Durban Teachers Centre, Ramcheron advised all the educators, that if they were not standing together on the issue of the sexual complaints against the Employee, they were going to lose the matter, as such, all the educators ought to stand together and support each other regarding the issue of the sexual complaints.
366. It was at that stage that Shabalala got up and raised his hand and indicated that he had not known of any sexual allegations that were levelled against the Employee and if the meeting was about that, then he was not going to participate in such a meeting and he indeed left.
367. In unfair dismissal disputes, it is the employer who has a duty to begin and the onus to prove that the dismissal was procedurally and substantively fair. In this case except for the delaying tactics by the Employer, the employer abandoned its case after realising that it had no case against the Employee.
368. The non-existence of the Employer’s case was clear from the beginning and that is why the Employer was refusing and doing everything possible to delay calling any of their witnesses, as a result, it was not surprising when the Employer simply abandoned their case and the legal representative simply withdrew as the attorney of record.
369. It was apparent and it was recorded and presented during the arbitration that the educators that had laid these false complaints against the Employee were refusing to come to testify and at some point, they only came because they were threatened by their legal representative, however, on learning that there was nothing that he could do, then they still refused to come and testify against the Employee in continuance of their false accusations.
370. In the premises the Employer has failed to discharge the onus to prove that the Employee’s dismissal was both procedurally and substantively fair.
371. WHEREFORE, the Employee prays for the that dismissal of the Employee was procedurally and substantively unfair and that the Employee be reinstated retrospectively.
     ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS
372. The award is made as a default award, because the Employer had not closed its case at the time when it decided to no longer participate in the process. The foregoing means the Employee’s evidence, together with that of his three witnesses is unchallenged, because all four witnesses were not cross examined.
373. However, I have considered the Employer’s evidence, as it had called five witnesses and in so doing, I have also considered the submissions made by the Employee to the effect that the evidence of Mhlanga and Ngcobo should be discarded, because it was not meant to stand alone, but to support that of Manzi and Mkhwanazi respectively. It is common cause that Manzi did not conclude her evidence as she did not come back to testify, when the cross examination was still in progress, whereas Mkhwanazi did not testify in the proceedings at all.
374. The above being the case, submission aforementioned is plausible as incomplete evidence. As a result, charge number 2 is not considered as there is no evidence led, as well as charge number 3, which is about Ms NV Dlamini, as she was never called to come and testify, meaning the entire charge three with its two counts and an alternative charge.
375. In light of the above, the only complete evidence submitted by the Employer relates to charges 1, which is about Mthethwa, and charge 4, which is about Ngubane.
376. The dismissal of the Employee was triggered by an article in Isolezwe, which was followed by various meetings, some educators boycotting the classes and opting to report at the district offices, the involvement of the Employer and ultimately, the involvement of the MEC.
377. Subsequently, Ms ST Nkosi, who was tasked to conduct investigations released a report which is contained on page 21 of bundle A. The report made the recommendations that-
     377.1 A full investigation be done and this must also include the finances of the school,
     377.2 The educators be subjected to leave without pay,
     377.3 Disciplinary action be taken against the educators if they continue not to teach,
     377.4 NSNP (National School Nutrition Programme) be monitored closely,
     377.5 TLS GET (Teacher Learner Support – General Education and Training) to monitor curriculum delivery in the school
     377.6 Safety issues in the school be attended to.
378. It is also worth mentioning that
379. Mthethwa testified that as she normally went to the toilet around 12h30, the Employee would see her through the glass door and ask her if he could assist her in the toilet by wiping her private parts. That led to her deciding to use a bucket in the class and to no longer go to the toilets. Under cross examination, Mthethwa mentioned that the aforementioned happened around the third quarter of 2017.
380. The Employee denied Mhethwa’s accusation and labelled it as a lie. He mentioned that he had multiple tasks to perform at the school, such as teaching, supervising the teachers and also involved in sports, and to this end, there is no way he would have known when she wanted to go to the toilet.
381. The Employee testified that his office was not nearer to the toilets, and also, there were cctv cameras covering the area concerned. He further testified that as displayed in the pictures, there was no way that he would have seen when one goes to the female’s toilets.
382. It is worth mentioning that Mthethwa under cross examination, excluded all the other years from 2013 and only said the charge was related to 2017. Also critical to note is that although the charge refers to the position of the Employee at the time as being the Deputy Principal, it is common cause that this is not correct and the Employee was the departmental head at the time
383. The above is symptomatic of a group venting exercise and a fishing expedition, where the educators appear to have mentioned allegations against the Employee, sometimes without paying attention to the details, but rather, being anxiously driven by some insidious motives.
384. Mthethwa tried to embellish the allegation during her evidence in chief by stating that the Employee would regularly sit next to the toilets, waiting for her to go to the toilet so that he could make the utterances regarding wiping her private part. This paints a picture which is that the Employee had no job or at least, had more free time such that he could dedicate such on a regular sitting, next to the female toilets. I find this extremely odd and of course, it marks a departure from her earlier testimony which is that the Employee would see her through the glass whilst in his office and then ask her the same question.
385. Mthethwa’s evidence therefore, in addition to the incorrect timelines that the charge covers, is contradictory as stated above. To this end, the evidence is unbelievable. It remains mysterious as to why did the Employer include all the years, starting from 2013, and the inescapable conclusion in this regard is that the Employer was on an all-out mission to find something that might stick on to the Employee.
386. On count 1 of charge 4, it is common cause that Ngubane used to get a lift from the Employee to and from the school, albeit not on a daily basis. This charge is particularly related to 2014, where Ngubane testified that on one day as she was on her way home from the school with the Employee in his BMW X5 vehicle around 14h00, the Employee diverted the car from the main route and drove to a drivers’ testing ground in Marianhill. She asked him why was he diverting from the route and he said he was going check something.
387. She further testified that as they arrived next to the drivers testing ground, the Employee stopped the vehicle and chatted with her, telling her that nobody likes her at the school, except him and that he is the one who ensured that she was appointed as an Educator at the school. The Employee then came closer to her, put his hands inside her skirt, to which she then held his hand. After that, he drove the car back to the main route and they went home.
388. Under cross examination, Ngubane stated that she was seating upright on the passenger seat, and the Employee sat on the driver seat when he pushed his hand inside her skirt.
389. The Employee denied the allegation above and stated that it never happened. He mentioned that it was impossible for him to reach Ngubane in the BMW X5 car, given that the space in between the driver and the passenger is higher and the seats are lower, which would have required him to jump over to her side. Further, if she was seating upright, it would not even be possible for him to arrive at her private part.
390. The fact that Ngubane stated that she was not aware of how big the space of a BMW X5 vehicle is, even though she had been inside the vehicle on several days is misleading and was meant to evade the truth. With her having been a passenger in the car for several days and months, and yet to plead ignorance it terms of the size of the space between the passenger and the driver is incomprehensible.
391. Regard must further be had to the fact that Gama, who testified on behalf of Ngubane stated that Ngubane told her that when she (Ngubane) and the Employee were at the vehicle testing ground told her to bend. The foregoing clearly indicates inconsistency in Ngubane’s version, as it can either be that the Employee told her to bend or that he inserted his hands in her private part.
392. The Employer’s allegation in relation to the alleged testing ground incident is incredulous and falls to be dismissed.
393. Regarding count 2 of the charges, Ngubane testified that in April 2016, the Employee started phoning her, claiming that he was alone in the house, having sex with her through masturbation, told her that he was horny, and sent her pictures of his private parts. Also, when she met him at school, he told her that they should date. d not tell anyone. She did not respond to him. She went to her class and cried.
394. The Employee disputed Ngubane’s testimony as lies, and mentioned that in March 2016, his young brother died and he was buried on the same day as the date in which Ngubane’s partner was buried. The Employee further mentioned that he was shocked at hearing Ngubane’s allegation, after he had known her for a long time without proposing love to her, and that he would take advantage of the death of her partner and propose to her.
395. It must be borne in mind that right from the outset, the Employee denied all the charges and viewed them as being an orchestrated plot to have him dismissed. To this end, the Employer was well aware that it needed to discharge the onus in proving each of the allegations levelled against the Employee.
396. However, Ngubane’s testimony on count 2 remains without a modicum of substantiation, despite her saying that these allegations were made through WhatsApp. She did not refer to any of such communications. The fact that the Employee praised her for being beautiful and told her that they needed to be in love, cannot constitute sexual harassment, moreso when it was only done once, on her own version. It must be noted that the Employee denies ever proposing love to her.
397. Regarding count 3, Ngubane stated that after the employee had called her to his office, she found him with Mazibuko, where the Employee claimed that he had helped her with her back and that she was fine and functioning in the bed. The Employee denied that he asked her to bend and said she voluntarily did so, and touched her toes to demonstrate to Mazibuko that he (Employee) had helped her and she was healthy. He stated that that had nothing to do with the bed.
398. This allegation cannot be divorced from the whole lot, which mysteriously were all made after the investigations and the recommendations regarding the educators’ conduct of not reporting to the school. It is an allegation that lacks substance and appears to have been raised as part of an effort to have the Employee found guilty.
399. It is of significance to note that when Ngubane was asked whether she agreed with the recommendations made by SL Nkosi, she responded affirmatively. When she was then asked about the origins of the sexual harassment allegations, as they do not appear in the report’s recommendations, she said such question should be addressed to management.
400. The above somehow lends credence to the Employee’s submission, that the reasons behind all these allegations were that the outcome of an Employer’s investigation was that the educators should be charged for not reporting at the school, and to avoid that, they should write something against him.
401. Shabalala’s evidence also corroborates the Employee’s submission in this regard,
402. The above being said, as it has been mentioned by Ngubane as well as Mthethwa, the charges that reflect their allegations are wrongly drafted as they reflect incorrect periods. Most notably, the periods have been exaggerated to paint a picture of an ongoing harassment perpetrated by the Employee against the educators, which is completely at odds with the actual relationship that existed which the educators themselves have attested to it being great, to the extent that they have held parties in his house, amongst some of the activities they had as the staff at the school.
403. I further had regard to the fact that all the Employer’s witnesses testified that they did not want the Employee to be dismissed, and some said all they wanted was for him to apologise and retract the article, when others said they wanted him to be temporarily removed from the school until the issue regarding hitmen had died, and then he would come back. Ngubane mentioned that they loved the Employee and all they were hoping for was for him to apologise and retract the article.
404. It is clear therefore that the Employee enjoyed a good relationship with the educators at the school, bar the attempted break-in at his house which landed in Isolezwe and caused the anxiety amongst the educators.
405. Subsequently, it would appear that there was some misunderstanding that took place when the educators expected the Employee to go and apologise in the meeting they had, whilst the Employee was not aware that there was such an expectation, as he said he did not receive such a message, which was supposed to have been related to him by Govendor.
406. Further, I find it not only improbable but also incredulous that these sexual allegations have been raised almost at the very same time by the educators, actually, all the written statements were written on 30 October 2019, and yet, some of them in terms of the charges go as far back as 2013, which is about six years earlier. It is really mindboggling that the educators, having encountered these allegations mainly, individually, would all choose to not report them at any other time, but wait for the Isolezwe article to come out, which has nothing to do with sexual harassment, for them raise the allegations. It is also of significance to note that during the period of the said allegations, the principal at the school was a lady, which under normal circumstances one may conclude that would have been a better person to approach, given that the educators behind allegations are all females.
407. Further, I find it mindboggling that Dubazana, who was based at the school for a number of years, and yet, she had never heard of any issues of sexual harassment against the Employee, by any educator. The same with Shabalala as well as Ms Nkosi.
408. The above depicts divisions that permeated amongst the educators at the school, which the Employer, unfortunately disregarded its own report and recommendations and opted to organise the educators whom appear to have been against the Employee, to a meeting in which as Shabalala said, Ramcheron addressed them and mentioned that these allegations of sexual misconduct are very serious allegations and told them that if there was anyone against the allegations, they must raise their hand before they proceed.
409. The sitting of the group made of some teachers of the school, to proceed with the charges is reminiscent of hatching a plan, as submitted by the Employee.
410. Even though the Employee had raised procedural issues regarding the disciplinary hearing, the only issue he testified on was the fact that he was denied legal representation during the disciplinary hearing.
411. In terms of the aforementioned, the Employee did not submit any evidence that entitled him to a legal representation in an internal process. The right that he had was that of representation, and his evidence is that he was offered that right, albeit not to have a legal representation.
412. It is common cause that he indeed, utilised his right and had a colleague of his from a different school, to represent him. I therefore cannot find any fault with the procedure.
413. Having considered the evidence in its entirety, it is my view that all the charges are without substance and the dismissal of the Employee is therefore substantively unfair.
414. Section 193 of the Act provides for remedies for unfair dismissal as follows: –
     (1) If the Labour Court or an arbitrator appointed in terms of this Act finds that a dismissal is unfair, the Court or the arbitrator may-

(a) order the employer to reinstate the employee from any date not earlier than the date of dismissal;

(b) order the employer to re-employ the employee, either in the work in which the employee was employed before the dismissal or in other reasonably suitable work on any terms and from any date not earlier than the date of dismissal; or

(c) order the employer to pay compensation to the employee.

414. The Employee seeks reinstatement in this case and given the evidence submitted, there is nothing that suggests that I cannot grant him the relief he seeks. As stated elsewhere above, the educators whom have raised the unsubstantiated allegations against him have all but one, mentioned that they adored him at the school and did not want him to be dismissed.
415. The Employee was dismissed on 15 June 2021, which means he had been dismissed for 57 full months as at the date of 15 March 2026.
416. During the period in which I have been seized with this matter, there was only one postponement which was as a result of the Employee, and that was for 10 June 2024, nd usual, the date was pre-agreed by all the parties. That being the case, it is only fair that only one month is deducted from the entire period of the Employee’s dismissal.
417. I have therefore calculated his back-pay as follows –

R50 341.44 x 57 months (less one month) = R 2 819 120.64 + 5 days (16 to 20 March 2026): R 50 341.44 / 22 = R 2 288.25 x 5 = R 11 441.25. The total therefore is R 2 869 462.08 + 11 441.24 = R 2 830 561.89.

418. There is no order as to the costs of his legal representation.

AWARD

419. The dismissal of the Employee, Mr Edmund Lucky Muziwenkosi Nkosi by the Employer, the Department of Education, was substantively unfair.
420. The Employer is ordered to reinstate the Employee back to the position he held, prior to his dismissal.
421. The Employer is further ordered to pay the Employee the back-pay amount of R 2 830 561.89. (Two Million Eight Hundred and Thirty, Five Hundred and Sixty One Rands and Eighty Nine Cents) by no later than 30 April 2026. The amount to include interest at a rate of 10.5% from the date of this award.
422. The Employee is ordered to report back to work within three days after receipt of this default award.

Vuyiso Ngcengeni
Panelist / Commissioner