In April 2022, catastrophic floods hit KwaZulu-Natal, leaving behind massive damage to public infrastructure. In response, Company A initiated an emergency procurement process to repair the damage quickly, without following the usual lengthy procurement procedures.
Our client, Mr N, then Acting Regional Facilities Manager for KZN, was tasked with identifying critical areas and helping ensure work could begin urgently. Despite having no authority over finance or procurement, he became the centre of a lengthy disciplinary process.
He was accused of failing to prevent irregular expenditure, not performing proper invoice verifications, and not preparing accurate scopes of work or costings. A second charge alleged he failed to respond to communications and acted unprofessionally during site visits.
Legal Leaders, through our appointed attorney Mr P. Buthelezi, defended Mr N on every count. We demonstrated that:
The emergency procurement process had been authorised by senior executives and not Mr N.
- His job did not include procurement or financial responsibilities.
- Any shortcomings in invoice detail or compliance were under the purview of procurement and finance departments.
- Supporting documents did exist, and no evidence proved that work wasn’t done.
- The internal audits and forensic reports used by the employer were heavily redacted and relied on hearsay.
On the second charge, Mr N had already been reprimanded, meaning the employer’s new charges amounted to double jeopardy, disciplining him twice for the same issue.
The Ruling: All Charges Dismissed
After months of hearings, the Company A Bargaining Council ruled entirely in favour of Mr N. The commissioner found:
- The employer failed to prove any of the misconduct charges.
- Emergency procurement decisions were made at executive level, not by Mr N.
- No credible evidence showed gross negligence or misconduct.
- The second charge was based on conduct that had already been formally addressed, making further action unfair.
Result: Mr N suspension was lifted, and he was ordered to return to work by September 2025.
What can you takeaway from this?
This case is a clear reminder that even in a crisis, employers must apply disciplinary processes fairly. If you’re being blamed for decisions outside your job description, especially in emergencies, you have the right to challenge those accusations.
Your employer cannot:
- Discipline you based on vague job expectations not found in your contract.
- Punish you twice for the same incident.
- Use redacted or hearsay evidence without giving you a fair opportunity to respond.
- And if you’re being scapegoated for systemic failures, you don’t have to accept it.
Legal Leaders is proud to have helped Mr N clear his name. This ruling restores his reputation, secured his job back, and proves that accountability must go both ways, especially within public institutions.
