Write a conclusion to this case note. The conclusion should
a. Be written in the stack method (and any other methods you want to use); and
b. Be no longer than six sentences; and
c. Be reflective of the legal issue and your thesis; and
d. Be precise and accurate
(1) WHEN YOU LIE ON YOUR CV1
By P.P. Ziqubu
Many job requirements involve a specific qualification to ensure that candidates meet the
profession’s or industry standards. The requirements are always set out in the job
advertisement and candidates must meet these requirements to be shortlisted and later
appointed. The requirements usually relate to work experience, skills, a specific degree or
professional designations, specific knowledge, and physical abilities. This list is not exhaustive.
Below are case notes in the case of Umgeni Water.
FACTS
Sheldon Naidoo (employee) applied for a graduate programme offered by Umgeni Water.
One of the requirements to be admitted to the programme was that the candidate must
possess a degree in Bachelor of Science in Engineering (chemical engineering). In his
application form the employee attached a degree certificate in chemical engineering from
the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN). This degree certificate resulted in him being admitted
to the graduate programme. The employee remained in the employ of Umgeni Water for
several years. (2) A new opportunity presented itself at Umgeni Water, a position of Process
Technician was advertised. The employee applied and had to attach his qualification
certificate to the application form.
This time Umgeni Water conducted a qualification check. The employee’s qualification was
checked and sent to UKZN for verification. UKZN stated it had no record of the said degree
being conferred on the employee. Umgeni Water approached the employee seeking
answers, which proved to be a fruitless exercise.
The employee resigned soon after. The resignation was rejected by Umgeni Water as there
was disciplinary proceeding underway. The employee tendered a second resignation letter,
this time resigning with immediate effect due to ill health.
Unhappy with the outcome of the verification, Umgeni Water sued the employee for all
money paid to him during his employment. (3) The basis being he submitted a fraudulent
qualification certificate, which meant from the onset there was no employment contract in
existence.
(4) 1
(KZP) [2023] Umgeni Water v Naidoo and Another Case No 857/1 1 May (also 2023)
3
ISSUE
What legal recourse does a company have when an applicant or employee is untruthful in
their curriculum vitae?
(5) THESIS
RULE AND CONSIDERATIONS
The matter escalated to the KwaZulu-Natal Division of the High Court in Pietermaritzburg and
relief was sought in terms of s 37D(1)(b) of the Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956 (the Act).
Graduated from UKZN
(6) The court carefully and thoroughly considered the information, facts, and data sub judice
and postulated that the applicant’s deportment was spurious and illusory; the document
propounding the authentication and verification of the academic qualification obtained, that
was fabricated by the employee, was phony. The employee falsely represented the true
nature of his qualifications with an intention of securing employment from Umgeni Water.
(7) It was clear from the evidence that the employee once registered at UKZN but was
excluded at some stage, which meant he never graduated. The false utterance and
presentation of a falsified certificate from UKZN misled Umgeni Water to think the employee
possessed a chemical engineering degree.
Employment relationship
The court held that (8) this act can be regarded as fraud as it induced Umgeni Water to offer
(9) him employment of which had it known about the fraudulent degree/certificate it would
not have.
The ‘employment relationship’ was entered into under false pretence and cannot be
regarded as true. The graduate programme requirements specified a candidate with a
chemical engineering degree. It was clear that there was no employment contract as most
of the terms were broken by the employee.
Monetary claim
(10) Umgeni Water stated that it was entitled to compensation from the employee’s provident
fund for the unjust enrichment. Umgeni Water referred the court to s 37D(1)(b)(ii) of the Act.
This section protects ‘the employer’s right to pursue the recovery of money due to it
arising, inter alia, out of any fraud perpetrated against it by its employee’ (para 46).
4
The court found that the conduct of the employee falls in the ambit of this section of the Act
and warrants Umgeni Water to have a valid claim against his pension fund money.
The court ordered the employee to pay Umgeni Water an amount of R 2 203 565,04 with
‘interest from date of demand to the date of final payment’ (para 54). Furthermore, Umgeni
Water was entitled to execute the judgment against the employee’s provident fund.
(11) CONCLUSION