A former University of Johannesburg (UJ) senior employee ordered to pay R18.18-million in damages is challenging one of the foundations of the judgment against him, arguing that the court never properly established whether the money lost belonged to UJ, the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) or other student funders.
Andries Godfrey Helani has asked the Labour Court for permission to take his case to the Labour Appeal Court, arguing that another court could reach a different conclusion on who suffered the alleged R18.18-million loss, whether he legally caused it and whether UJ was entitled to recover the money in its own name.
READ MORE: Appeal looms as ex-UJ official told to repay R18m in student aid case
The application, filed after Judge Reynaud Daniels delivered judgment on August 21, 2026, invokes sections 17(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act. The provision requires an applicant seeking leave to appeal to show either reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion, or some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
Helani’s papers try to meet both thresholds.
At the centre of the application is the status of money paid from NSFAS funds. Helani argues that UJ did not itself own those funds and that section 20(2) of the NSFAS Act gives a university an administrative role, not ownership of the money or an automatic right to sue for third-party disbursements.
Who suffered the loss?
The application argues that section 20(2) “does not vest ownership of NSFAS funds in the institution” and does not confer standing on UJ to recover third-party disbursements without a cession or statutory assignment.
He further argues that the NSFAS memorandum of agreement reserved recovery rights to NSFAS and that UJ was therefore required to show precisely what part of the R18.18 million represented its own loss. The application says the court accepted the full amount without separating NSFAS money from funds supplied by other bursars.
“The Learned Judge erred in holding that the aggregate sum (R18,184,863.62) as a proven loss,” the application states, without requiring UJ to establish how much came from NSFAS and how much from other bursars.
READ MORE: NSFAS crisis: R3bn for missing middle students redirected
That argument goes directly to both standing and damages. In simple terms, Helani is asking whether proving that money was wrongly paid is enough or whether UJ also had to prove that the loss was legally its own.
The second major attack concerns causation.
Helani says the court placed too much responsibility on him in a process involving several institutional structures, including the Bid Evaluation Committee, inspection teams and the Tender Committee. His application argues that those bodies performed separate functions and made independent decisions, while Fundi Capital also processed payments.
He says these intervening steps should have been considered when deciding whether his conduct was the legal and factual cause of the university’s losses. He also attacks findings that effectively treated his administrative role in compiling and transmitting recommendations as if he had unilateral executive authority over accreditation decisions.
Helani argues that “the chain of legal causation was broken by independent intervening acts”, including decisions and failures involving other university structures and Fundi Capital.
Onus and public importance
The application separately challenges the evidential burden placed on him. It argues that the court shifted the onus by requiring him to prove that evaluation committees had properly considered two properties and by treating his involvement as creating duties that, according to him, were never expressly delegated.
Helani also disputes findings concerning disclosure obligations, his credibility, the calculation of damages and the failure to deduct third-party administrative allocations such as Fundi’s service fee.
READ MORE: NSFAS: From beacon of hope to symbol of state failure
But the application eventually condenses its many complaints into five appeal questions: whether the NSFAS Act gave UJ standing to claim damages without a cession; how causation should work in a multi-tier approval system; what standard of proof applies to damages arising from alleged fraud; what legally caused the loss; and the proper approach to amendments under section 77(3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.
“There exist reasonable prospects that another Court, the Labour Appeal Court, would come to a different conclusion,” Helani argues.
Helani also relies on the “compelling reasons” leg of the appeal test. He says the case raises issues of public importance about the interpretation of the NSFAS Act, institutional accountability and the limits of imposing personal financial liability on university employees for decisions taken through committees.
“It is in the interests of justice that leave to appeal be granted,” the application states, arguing that the case raises “novel questions of public importance” concerning the NSFAS Act, institutional accountability and personal financial liability.
- A former University of Johannesburg (UJ) senior employee ordered to pay R18.18-million in damages is challenging one of the foundations of the judgment against him, arguing that the court never properly established whether the money lost belonged to UJ, the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) or other student funders.
- Andries Godfrey Helani has asked the Labour Court for permission to take his case to the Labour Appeal Court, arguing that another court could reach a different conclusion on who suffered the alleged R18.18-million loss, whether he legally caused it and whether UJ was entitled to recover the money in its own name.
- READ MORE: Appeal looms as ex-UJ official told to repay R18m in student aid case The application, filed after Judge Reynaud Daniels delivered judgment on August 21, 2026, invokes sections 17(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act.
- The provision requires an applicant seeking leave to appeal to show either reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion, or some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
- Helani’s papers try to meet both thresholds.
