The Labour Court has ordered former Victoria & Alfred Waterfront (V&A Waterfront) chief information officer Sibongiseni Thotsejane to pay nearly R2.9 million in damages after finding that she fraudulently misrepresented her employment history when she was recruited for the senior position.
The judgment, handed down by Judge Robert Lagrange on 18 September 2026, relates to conduct dating back to Thotsejane’s employment at the Cape Town property development between 2015 and 2016.
Who is Sibongiseni Thotsejane?
Sibongiseni, who was previously known by the surname Tunzelana, was appointed as the V&A Waterfront’s chief information officer in its Finance & Central Services Department in October 2015.
The role placed her in charge of the organisation’s information technology function.
According to the court judgment, she had previously worked for organisations including Engen, Old Mutual and Acceleration eMarketing, while she was also employed by the Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT).
Her employment at the V&A Waterfront was terminated on 12 December 2016 following a disciplinary enquiry.
Employment history questioned
The dispute centred largely on information Sibongiseni provided during the V&A Waterfront recruitment process.
The court found that she gave misleading accounts of how several of her previous jobs had ended.
The judgment states that Sibongiseni claimed she had left Engen because of political challenges and a merger, while evidence before the court showed that she had been dismissed for gross misconduct.
She also claimed she had been headhunted by Old Mutual. The court found that she had instead been dismissed following disciplinary proceedings.
Her departure from Acceleration eMarketing was presented as a decision made for career development, but the court found that she had been dismissed for incapacity.
The court also found that she had not disclosed that she was still employed by CPUT when she joined the V&A Waterfront.
Salary increased after another claim
The court further heard that Sibongiseni told the V&A Waterfront that CPUT had offered her a substantially better package.
The claim was used during negotiations over her remuneration and resulted in the V&A Waterfront increasing its proposed annual package from R700,000 to R850,000.
The judgment found that the supposed offer was not genuine.
Judge Lagrange concluded that the V&A Waterfront would not have employed Sibongiseni had it known the true circumstances surrounding her previous employment.
The court therefore found that the company had been induced to enter into the employment contract through fraudulent misrepresentations.
Court orders repayment of more than R2.8 million
The largest part of the judgment relates to remuneration Sibongiseni received while employed by the V&A Waterfront.
She was ordered to pay R1,031,237.46 in damages linked to the misrepresentations that resulted in her employment.
The court also awarded the V&A Waterfront R1,402,005 for the engagement of Professor Tiko Iyamu and a further R464,000 relating to IT consultant Nokubela Mchunu.
Together, those amounts total R2,897,242.46, before interest and legal costs.
Private business and conflict of interest
The judgment also dealt with Sibongiseni’s private business activities while she was employed by the V&A Waterfront.
The court heard evidence concerning her private company, FlavaLite Innovations, and found that she had business connections with Iyamu and Mchunu.
According to the judgment, Sibongiseni promoted their appointment through the V&A Waterfront’s outsourced IT provider, EOH MC Solutions, without disclosing her connections to them.
The court found that this created a conflict of interest and breached her contractual and procurement obligations.
The V&A Waterfront had paid R1.402 million for Iyamu’s services and R464,000 for Mchunu’s services, excluding VAT.
Court found she failed to deliver expected work
The court also considered evidence about Sibongiseni’s performance during her time as CIO.
V&A witnesses described missed meetings, deadlines and IT-related tasks that were not completed.
The judgment states that the company ultimately could not identify a completed piece of work that demonstrated the value expected from her role.
The court consequently accepted the V&A Waterfront’s claim that it had not obtained value equivalent to the remuneration paid to her.
Legal proceedings stretched over several years
The case was initially instituted in January 2018.
Sibongiseni was initially represented by attorneys, but her legal representatives withdrew in 2022 and she subsequently represented herself.
She had challenged the Labour Court’s jurisdiction, but that objection was dismissed in March 2023 and was not appealed.
The trial eventually proceeded in 2024, although the judgment records that Sibongiseni did not consistently attend the proceedings and did not cross-examine the V&A Waterfront’s witnesses or give evidence herself.
Punitive costs order
In addition to the damages, the court ordered Sibongiseni to pay interest on the amounts awarded to the V&A Waterfront.
She was also ordered to pay the company’s legal costs, including counsel fees, on an attorney-and-client scale.
The judgment said the circumstances justified the punitive costs order.
The ruling means Sibongiseni faces a financial liability of almost R2.9 million in damages, before the additional interest and legal costs ordered by the court.
