Appeal looms as ex-UJ official told to repay R18m in student aid case

A former University of Johannesburg senior executive has been ordered to repay more than R18-million after the Labour Court found that he helped non-compliant accommodation providers gain accreditation.

Sunday World understands that moves are underway to appeal the ruling.

Judge Reynaud Daniels ordered Andries Helani, UJ’s former senior director of student affairs, to pay the university R18 184 863.62 in damages for a breach of his employment contract. The court found Helani failed to disclose service-provider relationships, received payments from people linked to the scheme and influenced accreditation of properties that allegedly did not meet UJ requirements.

Daniels rejected Helani’s contention that his role was largely administrative. “The defendant was one of the most senior managers on the BEC,” the judgment says, referring to the Bid Evaluation Committee. It also found Helani was project leader and influential in accreditation.

The appeal is expected to challenge the court’s assessment of Helani’s role and the legal chain that resulted in him being held personally liable for the R18m.

A central dispute is why liability for failures in a multistage process was placed on one official when it involved several people. The defence says accommodation providers went through a process in which university departments inspected properties and produced reports. The reports were submitted to Helani, who took them to his superior, Dr Nolitha Vukuza, for approval.

Another dispute concerns the money. The funds originated from the National Student Financial Aid Scheme, while UJ administered them under an agreement with the NSFAS. The defence argues the memorandum of understanding between the two is critical because it regulated the relationship and administration of the funds.

The Labour Court rejected Helani’s argument that UJ lacked standing to sue because the money belonged to the NSFAS. Daniels interpreted UJ’s responsibility to “administer” NSFAS funds broadly, concluding that UJ “stands in the shoes of NSFAS and may conduct itself as if the funds are its own”.

That interpretation is expected to be challenged, with the defence arguing that administering NSFAS money did not necessarily make UJ its owner or entitle the university to recover it as its own patrimonial loss.

Evidence accepted by the court showed that Fundi, which handled payments on UJ’s behalf, paid more than R17m to Mahlatse Properties and/or Mahlatse Investments.

The defence argues that Mahlatse Investments was allegedly accredited, while Mahlatse Properties, which received payments, was not.

That raises the question of whether the loss flowed from Helani’s conduct or from a later payment by UJ’s agent.

Daniels found that “if the defendant had not assisted Mahlatse Investments through his fraudulent misrepresentations”, UJ would not have diminished its estate by the amount claimed.

The appeal is also expected to revisit the court’s refusal to allow Helani’s new lawyers to amend his defence to align the pleadings with evidence they said emerged during trial, including that the NSFAS had an interest in the dispute and that UJ suffered no patrimonial loss.

The court rejected the application, finding it late, prejudicial and brought in bad faith.

Setumo Stone