Nearly eight years after his dismissal, Midas Sekgabo has successfully sued his former employer, the Citizen Entrepreneurial Development Agency (CEDA), for unlawful termination. The protracted legal battle concluded this week when the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s original decision, ordering CEDA to compensate their former Head of Strategy.
Sekgabo was initially employed on a five-year contract as Head of Strategy. Following a restructuring exercise conducted by Deloitte Consulting, he transitioned to the position of Director-Corporate (Strategy and Research). However, on September 21, 2017, CEDA terminated his employment based on the results of a Competencies Technical Assessment, Psychometric Assessment, and oral interviews administered by Deloitte. As part of his exit package, Sekgabo received six months’ gross salary, accrued leave, gratuity for his entire contract period, three months’ notice at his gross basic salary, and medical aid coverage for three months (September to December 2017).
Sekgabo challenged his termination, arguing that it contravened the terms of his contract and that the assessment conducted by Deloitte was conflicted and biased against him. He sought either reinstatement or compensation for wrongful termination equivalent to the remainder of his contract, along with 10 percent interest.
CEDA contested the claim, asserting that the contract terms permitted termination without cause. They further contended that Sekgabo’s dismissal was lawful as it was carried out as part of a retrenchment exercise in compliance with Section 25 of the Employment Act.
Sekgabo disputed this, maintaining that the dismissal did not comply with the cited section, as he was never given proper notice of retrenchment. He also argued that CEDA failed to meaningfully consult him, as legally required, before terminating his employment.
The High Court, in its original ruling, observed, “He even disputed that the said exercise was a retrenchment exercise, pleading that the appellant had at all material times during the course of the restructuring exercise, asserted that the exercise was not a retrenchment and that the respondent’s employment was not at risk.” The court further noted that CEDA had consistently assured Sekgabo that he would not be affected by the retrenchment exercise, concluding that there was evidence of a breach of contract.
The Court of Appeal concurred with the High Court’s findings. “So, where the termination is held to be unlawful under contract of employment and no other legal basis is relied upon, the measure for damages for breach must fall. The measure for damages contended for by the appellant is without legal basis and must be rejected without further ado. The appeal is dismissed with costs,” the CoA concluded.
