Who lost the R18.2 m? Ex-UJ worker appeals NSFAS harms order

A previous University of Johannesburg (UJ) senior staff member bought to pay R18.18-million in damages is challenging among the structures of the judgment versus him, arguing that the court never ever appropriately developed whether the cash lost come from UJ, the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) or other trainee funders.

Andries Godfrey Helani has actually asked the Labour Court for consent to take his case to the Labour Appeal Court, arguing that another court might reach a various conclusion on who suffered the declared R18.18-million loss, whether he lawfully triggered it and whether UJ was entitled to recuperate the cash in its own name.

FOUND OUT MORE: Appeal looms as ex-UJ authorities informed to pay back R18m in trainee help case

The application, submitted after Judge Reynaud Daniels provided judgment on August 21, 2026, conjures up areas 17( 1 )(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act. The arrangement needs a candidate looking for leave to interest reveal either sensible potential customers that another court would reach a various conclusion, or some other engaging reason that the appeal need to be heard.

Helani’s documents attempt to fulfill both limits.

At the centre of the application is the status of cash paid from NSFAS funds. Helani argues that UJ did not itself own those funds which area 20( 2) of the NSFAS Act provides a university an administrative function, not ownership of the cash or an automated right to demand third-party dispensations.

Personal finance Who suffered the loss?

The application argues that area 20( 2) “does not vest ownership of NSFAS funds in the organization” and does not give basing on UJ to recuperate third-party dispensations without a cession or statutory project.

He even more argues that the NSFAS memorandum of contract scheduled healing rights to NSFAS which UJ was for that reason needed to reveal specifically what part of the R18.18 million represented its own loss. The application states the court accepted the total without separating NSFAS cash from funds provided by other bursars.

“The Learned Judge erred in holding that the aggregate amount (R18,184,863.62) as a tested loss,” the application states, without needing UJ to develop just how much originated from NSFAS and just how much from other bursars.

LEARNT MORE: NSFAS crisis: R3bn for missing out on middle trainees rerouted

That argument goes straight to both standing and damages. In easy terms, Helani is asking whether showing that cash was incorrectly paid suffices or whether UJ likewise needed to show that the loss was lawfully its own.

The 2nd significant attack issues causation.

Helani states the court put excessive duty on him in a procedure including a number of institutional structures, consisting of the Bid Evaluation Committee, evaluation groups and the Tender Committee. His application argues that those bodies carried out different functions and made independent choices, while Fundi Capital likewise processed payments.

He states these stepping in actions must have been thought about when choosing whether his conduct was the legal and accurate reason for the university’s losses. He likewise assaults findings that successfully treated his administrative function in putting together and sending suggestions as if he had unilateral executive authority over accreditation choices.

Helani argues that “the chain of legal causation was broken by independent stepping in acts”, consisting of choices and failures including other university structures and Fundi Capital.

Personal finance Onus and public value

The application individually challenges the evidential problem put on him. It argues that the court moved the onus by needing him to show that assessment committees had actually appropriately thought about 2 homes and by treating his participation as producing responsibilities that, according to him, were never ever specifically handed over.

Helani likewise contests findings worrying disclosure commitments, his reliability, the computation of damages and the failure to subtract third-party administrative allotments such as Fundi’s service charge.

LEARNT MORE: NSFAS: From beacon of intend to sign of state failure

The application ultimately condenses its numerous problems into 5 appeal concerns: whether the NSFAS Act provided UJ standing to claim damages without a cession; how causation needs to work in a multi-tier approval system; what requirement of evidence uses to damages developing from supposed scams; what lawfully triggered the loss; and the appropriate technique to modifications under area 77( 3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.

“There exist affordable potential customers that another Court, the Labour Appeal Court, would pertain to a various conclusion,” Helani argues.

Helani likewise counts on the “engaging factors” leg of the appeal test. He states the case raises concerns of public significance about the analysis of the NSFAS Act, institutional responsibility and the limitations of enforcing individual monetary liability on university workers for choices taken through committees.

“It remains in the interests of justice that delegate appeal be given,” the application states, arguing that the case raises “unique concerns of public significance” worrying the NSFAS Act, institutional responsibility and individual monetary liability.

Register for Our Newsletter

Setumo Stone