Case Law[2024] ZAGPJHC 821South Africa
Shiundlana v Ashley and Another (072432/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 821 (27 August 2024)
Headnotes
Application for reviewing a decision for listing on the Register of Dishonest Employees System (“REDS”), which is a database administered by the Banking Association of South Africa (“BASA”) within the context of an employment contract.
Judgment
begin wrapper
begin container
begin header
begin slogan-floater
end slogan-floater
- About SAFLII
About SAFLII
- Databases
Databases
- Search
Search
- Terms of Use
Terms of Use
- RSS Feeds
RSS Feeds
end header
begin main
begin center
# South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAGPJHC 821
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
sino index
## Shiundlana v Ashley and Another (072432/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 821 (27 August 2024)
Shiundlana v Ashley and Another (072432/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 821 (27 August 2024)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2024_821.html
sino date 27 August 2024
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case
Number: 072432/2023
1.
REPORTABLE: NO
2.
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
3.
REVISED: YES
27
August 2024
In
the matter between:
MAXWELL
SHIUNDLANA
Appellant
AND
THE
DECISION MAKER, JOHN ASHLEY
First
Respondent
ABSA
BANK LIMITED
Second
Respondent
This
judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties’ legal representatives by e-mail and released to
SAFLII. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 10h00 on 27
August 2024.
Mini
summary: Application for reviewing a decision
for
listing on the Register of Dishonest Employees System (“REDS”),
which is a database administered by the Banking
Association of South
Africa (“BASA”)
within the context of an
employment contract.
Order
application dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Mudau, J:
[1]
This is an application to set aside a
decision by the second respondent (Absa) to refer the applicant’s
name for listing on
the Register of Dishonest Employees System
(“REDS”). REDS is a database administered by the Banking
Association of
South Africa (“BASA”), which contains
details of employees of banks and other financial institutions that
were dismissed
for dishonesty-related offences.
Although
the notice of motion is framed as a review application, the applicant
(
“Shiundlana”)
however, has not
pleaded the legal basis for bringing a review application in his
founding papers. In essence, the application is
a challenge to the
lawfulness of the exercise of Absa’s rights to RED list the
applicant emanating from their employment
relationship.
Background Facts
[2]
The background facts are largely common
cause. Mr
Shiundlana
was employed by Absa
as of 1 May 2021, in the position of Specialist: IT Security
Analysis, specialising in SailPoint IdentitylQ
Development
(“SailPoint”). In this capacity he reported to Ms Mpho
Musida (“Musida”), a “DevOps Manager”.
According to Absa, SailPoint refers to a suite of identity access
management software that can be deployed on-premise, in the cloud,
or
in a data center. SailPoint is designed to securely manage user
access to data, software, and applications that the client company
regularly uses. It is an international company that provides IT and
online security products to large corporate clients around
the world.
Absa uses SailPoint software and services and employs teams of
developers to customize these products to suit its specific
needs.
[3]
As an IT Security Analyst Specialist, Mr
Shiundlana’s role
included onboarding
applications; developing rules, custom objects and workflows that
were business specific. As a result, he had
access to what is
described as “the internal workings of critical parts of Absa's
coding environment, including details of
users, passwords, and access
to the source code of various applications and programs”. In
essence, he would also conduct
prescribed standard troubleshooting
and coding tasks, which included testing for security weaknesses or
debugging sensitive code
[4]
REDS is an industry database established as
a central point of reference of employees in the banking, finance and
related industries
who have been dismissed for dishonesty related
offences or found guilty of dishonesty related offences after a post
termination
enquiry. Participating entities may use REDS as a
reference for prospective employees to manage the risk of repetition
behaviour.
The REDS database, which all
participating entities in South Africa subscribe to, and which is
maintained by BASA on behalf of and
in the interests of the financial
sector and the broader public, is a legitimate means of assisting
banks in their hiring processes
and removing dishonest employees from
the industry.
[5]
In
Muthusamy
v Nedbank Ltd
[1]
Tip
AJ within the context of a Red Listing
stated
aptly as follows:
“
Its role is to
promote responsible, competitive and profitable banking and all its
members subscribe to a Code of Banking Practice
which
inter
alia
aims to cultivate ethical practices within the
industry. The RED system forms an important part of this program. In
essence it comprises
a centrally maintained database on which are
recorded the names of all employees in the banking industry who have
been dismissed
for dishonesty-related offences. This database
provides a screening resource for the use of participating banks in
respect of prospective
employees”.
[6]
Against the above background and with
specific reference to REDS, Clause 7 of Mr Shiundlana’s
employment agreement provides
as follows:
“
7.
REGISTER OF EMPLOYEES'DISHONESTY SYSTEM (REDS)
7.1
You agree that by virtue of your employment, you are bound by the
principles of the REDS system which applies to you both during
and
after termination of your employment. 7.2 Should your services with
Absa be terminated for any reason related to dishonesty,
your name
and biographical details will be recorded on a central database,
REDS, administered
by the Banking
Association of South Africa. If you were to resign from Absa to avoid
facing a disciplinary process relating to a
misconduct involving an
element of dishonesty or if Absa, after termination of your
employment, were to uncover serious misconduct
by you involving an
element of dishonesty committed whilst employed, Absa shall be
entitled to convene a REDS enquiry. The purpose
of the enquiry shall
be to determine whether you should be listed on REDS and to afford
you an opportunity to be heard before a
decision is made.”
[7]
Equally significant for current purposes
are the REDS guidelines issued by BASA which provide as follows
“
1.
Scope of application of the Industry Database using the REDScheck
Framework and Procedures: Linking to the Industry Database
on the
REDScheck Framework may happen in the following instances:
1.1 Where an employee was
found guilty of dishonest conduct and dismissed after disciplinary
proceedings were followed or after
a post termination inquiry.
1.2
Where an employee
resigned or absconded after having been charged or notified of the
allegation and before the disciplinary inquiry
was held or completed
and thereafter a decision to link is made at an Industry
Enquiry.” My underling.
The Misconduct
[8]
On 30 September 2022, Timofey Llinykh
(“Llinykh”), a CTO Platform Engineer, employed by Absa
Technology Prague, alerted
Absa to an internal Absa Africa data
exposure on GitHub (GitHub is a cloud-based service for IT
developers).
GitHub, it is said, allows
developers to store and manage versions of computer code, and to
collaborate with other developers across
the world, for example in
debugging code or in copying useful portions of code developed by
other developers and made available
for open-source access.
[9]
However, anyone can open a free GitHub
account, and can choose whether to store information in the public or
private repositories
linked to their account. Public repositories can
be viewed and their copied by all other GitHub users reported to be
in their millions).
On the other hand, the private repositors in a
private user's Github account is not publicly accessible. It can only
be accessed
by persons who have the necessary permissions and
passwords. By way of example, Absa has a corporate GitHub account,
with private
and public repositories. Developers such as Mr
Shiundlana’s would have access to Absa's private repository.
[10]
In this case, Llinykh discovered that
Internal Absa Africa Access workgroups metadata was exposed in a
publicly available personal
GitHub repository.
He
found that the person with the associated GitHub account profile is
Mr Shiundlana, which increases the risks to Absa. The resultant
investigation revealed that Mr Shundlana had copied large portions of
Absa's proprietary code and technical information, including
lists of
users and login information, to his public GitHub repository, which
was open to public viewing and access. The conduct
complained of
according to Absa constituted a major leak of highly confidential
information, which could enable hackers to penetrate
Absa's security
far more easily. It was feared that the applicant planned to sell
sensitive technical information. After being
interviewed the
Applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for his
conduct.
[11]
Consequently, Absa placed him on suspension
on 3 October 2022, pending a disciplinary enquiry given the
seriousness of the conduct
complained of. The Applicant's access to
Absa’s network was also removed followed by
a
notification of disciplinary charge (s) and disciplinary meeting the
next day.
The allegations of misconduct
were, inter alia “dishonesty in that on 30 September 2022, the
Applicant informed his line manager,
Musida, during a discussion
about his improper transfer of Absa confidential information, that it
was a mistake as he was testing
auto commit functionality as it was
not working on Absa GitHub repository”.
[12]
The disciplinary hearing was scheduled to
proceed on 7 October 2022 at 13h00. However, at 12:58, the applicant
delivered an affidavit
indicating that he would not attend the
disciplinary hearing due to ill health. The applicant provided a copy
of a medical certificate.
As the applicant's notice period expired on
7 October 2022, it was not possible for Absa to conduct a
disciplinary hearing, or
to finalise the investigation into the full
extent of the applicant's misconduct.
[13]
The applicant was subsequently notified to
attend a post termination REDS listing fact-finding enquiry
consistent with
Absa's obligations in terms
of REDS. The notice explained that the purpose of the enquiry is to
determine whether the applicant's
name should be listed on the REDS
system based on (i) misappropriation and/or unauthorised possession
of Absa confidential and
proprietary information and (ii) dishonesty
by making misrepresentations during the investigations.
By
agreement between the parties, the applicant was given an opportunity
to make written submissions in relation to the allegations.
[14]
On 7 July 2023, the first respondent, cited
as the decision maker (John Schley, an employee of Absa), issued the
decision and found
that the applicant should be listed on REDS as per
minutes of the post-termination inquiry, Annexure 2. Significantly,
the decision
maker also found that the applicant's explanation, that
he was testing the auto commit functionality, was belied by the
evidence
because no requests for him to troubleshoot were made during
the period of his notice to resign.
[15]
Mr Shiundlana contends that
the
timing of his resignation and the discovery of his misconduct are
such that it is not competent for Absa to place him on the
REDS
database. On 8 September 2022, the applicant gave one month's notice
of his resignation, which expired on 7 October 2022.
[16]
It
is well established and therefore the correct legal position in our
law is that interpretation is an objective process of attributing
meaning to the words used in a document, read in the context of the
document as a whole and having regard to the apparent purpose
of the
words. It is a unitary exercise which must be approached
holistically: simultaneously considering the text, context and
purpose.
[2]
[17]
In
University
of Johannesburg v Auckland Park Theological Seminary and Another
[3]
,
the Constitutional Court puts it thus:
“
The
approach in
Endumeni
“updated”
the previous position, which was that context could be resorted to if
there was ambiguity or lack of
clarity in the text. The Supreme Court
of Appeal has explicitly pointed out in cases subsequent
to
Endumeni
that
context and purpose must be taken into account as a matter of course,
whether or not the words used in the contract are
ambiguous.
A
court interpreting a contract has to, from the onset, consider the
contract’s factual matrix, its purpose, the circumstances
leading up to its conclusion, and the knowledge at the time of those
who negotiated and produced the contract”.
[18]
Mr Shiundlana’s contention is clearly
wrong. The REDS guidelines provide for listing in the event of a
disciplinary hearing
not being finalised. The guidelines plainly
contemplate a situation where an employer did not conduct or did not
complete disciplinary
proceedings. In those circumstances, an
employer is required to conduct a post termination inquiry before
listing in terms of the
applicable guidelines and the applicant’s
employment contract, which Absa duly did.
Properly
interpreted, the employment agreement gives Absa the contractual
right to convene a post termination enquiry to determine
whether the
Applicant should be listed on REDS database as it did. Accordingly,
Absa was not precluded from proceeding with a post
termination
enquiry, in circumstances where the applicant's employment terminated
after the misconduct was first discovered, and
where the applicant
alleged, he was ill and could not attend a disciplinary hearing on
his last day of employment.
[19]
There
is an additional reason why this application stands to fail. As
indicated from the onset, Mr Shiundlana failed to plead the
legal
basis for bringing this review application.
It
is trite that in motion proceedings the papers stand as the pleadings
and evidence, the relevance of the evidence offered is
dependent on
its cogent connection with the relief being sought as defined in the
notice of motion.
[4]
[20]
From
the Preamble,
the
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act
(“
PAJA”)
[5]
has been enacted to “
give
effect to the right to administrative action that is lawful,
reasonable and procedurally fair and to the right to written reasons
for administrative action as contemplated in section 33 of the
Constitution South Africa”
[6]
.
A
review application may be instituted either in terms of the relevant
provisions of PAJA or on the principle of legality. Neither
of these
paths to review finds application in this matter, because Absa's
decision to add the applicant's name to the RED database,
occurred in
the context of the contractual employment relationship between him
and Absa, and does not amount to the exercise of
a public power as
demonstrated above within the definition of the Act
[7]
.
It
follows, accordingly, that this application lacks merit and falls to
be dismissed with the question of costs following the resultant
order.
Order
[21]
The application be dismissed with costs,
including costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel.
TP MUDAU
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
Date
of Hearing:
12
August 2024
Date
of Judgment:
27
August 2024
APPEARANCES
Counsel
for the Applicant:
Mr.
KP Masenya
Instructed
by:
Masenya
Attorneys
Counsel
Respondent:
Adv.
GA Fourie SC
Accompanied
by:
Adv.
Z Ngwenya
Instructed
by:
Cliffe
Dekker Hofmeyer Inc.
[1]
(J2211/09)
[2010] ZALC 216
; (2010) 31 ILJ 1453 (LC) (16 April 2010)
at para 2.
[2]
See
Coral
Lagoon Investments 194 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Capitec Bank Holdings
Limited
(Case no.887/2021)
[2022] ZASCA 144
;
[2023] 1 All SA 1
(SCA) (24
October 2022) at para 15.
[3]
(CCT 70/20)
[2021] ZACC 13
;
2021 (8) BCLR 807
(CC);
2021 (6) SA 1
(CC) (11 June 2021) at para 66.
[4]
See
Kouga
Local Municipality v St Francis Bay (Ward 12) Concerned Residents
Association
(1052022)
[2023] ZASCA 168
;
2024 (4) SA 70
(SCA) (1 December 2023)
at para 15.
[5]
Act
3 of 2000.
[6]
Act
108 of 1996.
[7]
In
terms of Section 1(b), administrative action means any decision
taken, or anything like to take a decision, by- a natural or
juristic person, other than an organ of state, when exercising a
public power or performing a public function in terms of an
empowering provision, which obviously affect the rights of any
person, and which has a direct, external legal effect…”.
sino noindex
make_database footer start
Similar Cases
Sibanda v Affinity Health Insurance and Another (046976/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 778 (15 August 2024)
[2024] ZAGPJHC 778High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
Siyakhula Sonke Empowerment Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Others v Redpath Mining (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd and Another (9234/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 680 (22 July 2024)
[2024] ZAGPJHC 680High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
Sibanda and Others v S (096/2016) [2024] ZAGPJHC 955 (23 September 2024)
[2024] ZAGPJHC 955High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
Siyakhula Sonke Empowerment Corpoation (Pty) Ltd and Others v Redpath Mining South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (Application for Leave to Appeal) (57639/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 933 (19 September 2024)
[2024] ZAGPJHC 933High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
Shabangu v Minister of Police and Others (20/18028) [2024] ZAGPJHC 822 (27 August 2024)
[2024] ZAGPJHC 822High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar