Blog

A recent Labour Court (LC) judgment sends a stark warning to employees who manipulate their employment history to secure an appointment: Dismissal may be only the beginning. Where an employer can prove that it was fraudulently induced to employ someone, it may also pursue a civil claim against the employee personally for the financial losses flowing from the deception.

In Victoria and Alfred Waterfront (Pty) Ltd and Another v Thotsejane (C821/2017) [2026] ZALCCT 160, the LC ordered a former Chief Information Officer (CIO) to pay damages totalling approximately R2.9 million, together with interest and legal costs on the punitive attorney-and-client scale.

The Real Price of a False Employment History

Sibongiseni Thotsejane was appointed as CIO in the Finance and Central Services Department of Victoria and Alfred Waterfront (Pty) Ltd, with effect from 12 October 2015. During the recruitment process, she signed an application form acknowledging that false information could render any resulting employment contract null and void. She also affirmed and expanded upon the information contained in her CV during several interviews.

Important parts of the employment history presented to the employer were, however, untrue.

Thotsejane represented that she had left Engen because of “political challenges” and a merger. In reality, she had been dismissed for gross misconduct involving a conflict of interest connected to her private company. She claimed that she had left Old Mutual after being headhunted, when she had in fact been dismissed following disciplinary proceedings. Her departure from Acceleration eMarketing was described as being motivated by career development, whereas she had been dismissed for incapacity.

She also failed to disclose that she remained employed by the Cape Peninsula University of Technology when she commenced employment at the Waterfront. To make matters worse, she claimed that the university had made her a significantly more attractive offer. This alleged offer was used to negotiate an increase in the Waterfront’s proposed annual remuneration package from R700,000 to R850,000. The Court found that the competing offer was not genuine.

This was not a case of a minor error, an ambiguous date, or an innocent omission. It involved a pattern of misrepresentations concerning matters that went directly to the employee’s suitability, integrity, and employment record. The Court concluded that the Waterfront would never have appointed her had it known the truth. The fraudulent representations were therefore causally connected to the conclusion of the employment contract and the losses that followed.

Dishonesty Did Not End at Recruitment

The employer’s claim extended beyond the circumstances surrounding the appointment.

The Court found that Thotsejane had caused the Waterfront to engage the services of two IT consultants while concealing her pre-existing business relationships with them. The consultants had previously performed work through her private company, yet these connections were not disclosed when she promoted their appointment through the Waterfront’s outsourced IT service provider.

The Waterfront paid approximately R1.4 million for the services of Professor Tiko Iyamu and R464,000 for the services of Nokubela Mchunu. The Court held Thotsejane liable for these amounts, in addition to approximately R1.03 million relating to the remuneration that she had received from the Waterfront. The total award amounted to R2,897,242.46, excluding interest and legal costs.

The case therefore concerned more than an embellished CV. The initial deception enabled the employee to enter a position of trust, after which further conflicts of interest and breaches of the duty of good faith caused additional loss. The Court’s punitive costs order reflected both the seriousness of the fraudulent conduct and the manner in which the litigation had been handled.

When a Lie Justifies Dismissal

An employee who lies about a material fact during recruitment may be dismissed for dishonesty. While the applicable Code of Good Practice: Dismissal recognises an employer’s entitlement to satisfactory conduct and performance, dismissal must still comply with the fairness requirements of the Labour Relations Act (LRA). The employee should ordinarily be informed of the allegations, given a reasonable opportunity to respond, and permitted the assistance contemplated by the employer’s disciplinary procedure.

A false statement does not automatically justify dismissal merely because it appears on a CV. The employer must establish that the representation was false, that the employee made it knowingly or dishonestly, and that it was material to the appointment or to the continuation of the employment relationship. Materiality is crucial. A fabrication about a required qualification, professional registration, previous dismissal, relevant experience, or competing remuneration offer is far more likely to justify dismissal than an immaterial inaccuracy, such as a misdescribed short course unrelated to the position, that played no role in the appointment decision.

In LTE Consulting (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others, an employee had falsely claimed to possess qualifications including a BCom, chartered accountant status, and an MBA. The LC regarded the misrepresentation as serious because the qualifications had influenced the employer’s decision to appoint him. The case confirms that CV fraud may constitute gross dishonesty even where the employee has performed the work for a period before the truth emerges.

Employers should, however, distinguish between an active lie and a failure to volunteer information. In Intercape Ferreira Mainliner (Pty) Ltd v McWade and Others, the LC considered the extent to which a job applicant must disclose the circumstances surrounding the termination of previous employment. The judgment recognised that giving false information is different from merely failing to disclose information where no legal or contractual duty to disclose it exists. An employer relying on non-disclosure should therefore be able to identify the question asked, the duty requiring disclosure, and why the omitted information was material.

From Dismissal to Damages

The most important feature of the judgment is its confirmation that an employer’s recourse is not necessarily limited to discipline and dismissal.

Where the deception caused measurable financial loss, the employer may also consider cancelling the contract and instituting a damages claim. To succeed, the employer will generally need to establish a false representation, the employee’s knowledge of its falsity, an intention that the employer should act upon it, actual reliance by the employer, and loss caused by that reliance. The Waterfront judgment confirms that the LC may determine such claims where they arise from, or are sufficiently connected to, the employment relationship.

Recovery of every cent paid to an employee is not automatic. An employer must prove its loss and the causal connection between that loss and the employee’s fraud. Questions may arise about whether the employer received value from the employee’s services, whether the remuneration would have been paid in any event, and whether cancellation and restitution are legally competent on the particular facts. The Waterfront decision is powerful, but it should not be reduced to a blanket rule that every dishonest job applicant must repay every salary payment.

Depending on the facts, an employer may also pursue losses flowing from undisclosed conflicts of interest, unauthorised procurement decisions, kickbacks, or the diversion of corporate opportunities. Criminal complaints may be appropriate where forged certificates, fabricated documents, or other fraudulent conduct are involved. If an employer seeks to recover money from an employee’s remuneration or benefits, it must also comply with the statutory requirements governing deductions and may need a judgment, written consent, or another lawful basis before making the deduction.

Prevention Remains Cheaper than Litigation

The events in the Waterfront matter stretched over many years. That alone should encourage employers to strengthen recruitment controls rather than relying exclusively on legal action after the damage has been done.

Application forms should require candidates to confirm that the information supplied is complete and accurate, explain the consequences of material misrepresentation, and authorise lawful verification. Qualifications, professional registrations, references, and recent employment history should be checked before appointment, particularly in senior, financial, procurement, IT, and other high-trust roles.

Questions about previous employment should be precise. Instead of asking only why a candidate ‘left’, employers should ask whether the candidate resigned, was retrenched, was dismissed, entered into a settlement agreement, or left while disciplinary proceedings were contemplated or pending. Interview notes and scoring records should be retained so that the employer can later prove which representations were made and how they influenced the appointment.

Any vetting process must nevertheless remain relevant, proportionate, and legally compliant. Employers should not use ‘honesty’ as a pretext for intrusive questioning about pregnancy, family responsibilities, disability, age, or other protected personal characteristics. The information sought must have a genuine connection to the job and the employment decision.

The lesson from the Waterfront case is blunt: An appointment secured by deliberate deception is not protected simply because the employee has already received the salary. If the lie was material, the trust relationship may be destroyed. If the lie caused financial loss, the employee may face a damages claim. If the misconduct continues after appointment, the liability may grow dramatically.

While a dishonest CV may open the door to employment, this case shows that it can also open the door to dismissal, years of litigation, punitive costs, and a repayment order running into millions.