Where the employer can show a causal link between an employee’s breach of their employment contract and the employer’s patrimonial loss, they may also have a claim for contractual damages under section 77(3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, 1997 (BCEA).
In this case, the University of Johannesburg (University) was granted damages of over R18m against one of its former senior employees.
The respective parties’ roles and duties
The University employed Andries Helani as its senior director: student affairs from January 2017 until his dismissal in March 2024. In this role, he oversaw the accreditation of privately-owned student accommodation service providers for National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) students on the University’s behalf.
Helani’s employment contract obliged him, among other things, to declare his interests annually and to disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest, including any personal or family interest in third parties dealing with the University from which he might benefit commercially.
He was also required to perform his duties diligently and in good faith with the care and skill of a reasonable person with his knowledge and experience; act within his authority and in compliance with the University’s rules and policies; refrain from nepotism, favouritism, collusion and unfair business practices; and act honestly and in the University’s best interests, including by not making secret profits at the University’s expense or placing himself in a position of conflict.
The University was, in terms of its agreement with NSFAS, required to account to NSFAS for funds allocated to it and its students and could be potentially liable for misused or misappropriated funds.
Khanyisa Monqo and Nicola Mullineux 27 Feb 2026 Background facts
In October 2020, Helani confirmed he had no interest in any third party in a relationship or potential relationship with the University that may result in a commercial benefit for him. No further declarations of interests were made by Helani.
In February 2022, Helani proposed the accreditation of two properties in Braamfontein (both operated by Mahlatse Investments) for a combined capacity of 1441 beds.
The Braamfontein properties turned out to have capacity for fewer than 300 beds and the accreditation process followed in respect of these properties was riddled with significant irregularities (including the submission of fraudulent supporting documentation and improperly conducted inspection processes). The University, relying on Helani’s proposals, approved and accredited the Braamfontein properties, amongst others.
As a result of the non-compliant Braamfontein properties being accredited, the total amount paid by the University was approximately R18.2m.
Further, multiple payments were made to Helani by Mahlatse Investments and associated individuals, which appeared from the evidence to be bribes. Helani did not disclose these relationships or payments.
Findings in the Labour Court
The court found that Helani had breached various fiduciary and contractual duties. In particular, Helani had:
- failed in his duty to recommend suitable privately-owned student accommodation providers and ensure they were accredited in compliance with the University’s policies and standards;
- breached his duty to act diligently and with the care and skill expected of him given his knowledge and experience by failing to flag individuals and entities linked to fraudulent activities, despite knowing that this failure could cause the University financial harm;
- failed to exercise oversight of the inspections of the Braamfontein properties;
- failed to act in the best interests of the University and to declare his relationships with service providers, their directors or representatives;
- failed to make the declarations of interest required by his employment contract; and
- breached his fiduciary duties by using his position and influence to secure secret profits at the University’s expense.
In addition, Helani was found to have committed multiple fraudulent misrepresentations throughout the accreditation process and by failing to disclose the abovementioned relationships, interests and payments.
The court rejected Helani’s attempts to minimise his role in the accreditation process as ‘merely administrative’.
The evidence showed that Helani was the project leader, managed the accreditation process, directed inspection teams, and prepared the final report which was relied on by the tender committee of the University. His explanations that he could not perceive any conflict of interest were dismissed as improbable and contrived.
The damages claim
The University had, in total, paid approximately R18.2m for the non-compliant Braamfontein properties.
The court held that if Helani had not committed the relevant breaches and fraudulent misrepresentations to assist Mahlatse Investments, the University would not have accredited the Braamfontein properties and lost the R18.2m. Therefore, the court accepted that there was a reasonable connection between the breach and the damages.
Helani was ordered to pay the full R18,184,863.62 in damages, plus costs, to the University.
