Author: admin

David Themba Ndhlovu, states under oath in English.

1.
I am an adult male, ID ; currently self employed as Executive Director of Genius Management Solutions (GMS) a subsidiary of Genius Holdings whose offices are at .

2.
With regards to my background I can state that I was previously employed as the Chief Director for Further Education Training (FET) at the National Department of Education (DoE) in Pretoria, from the 1st July 2001 which appointment was made permanent in January 2002? In May 2004 I was appointed to act as the Deputy Director General (DDG) for Further Education and Training (FET). In November 2004 I was deployed to KwaZulu Natal (KZN) to act as the Superintendent General of the Kwazulu-Natal Department Of Education (KZNDE). Which position I occupied until May 2005. In August 2005 I was then appointed Deputy Director General Planning in the same department. In September 2007 resigned from this position and the public service to join the private sector. In February 2008 I joined African Access Holding as Executive Director of on e of the subsidiaries PTY Trade Trading as Desolations, I resigned my position as Director in that company in September 2009 to operate on my own as Genius Management Solutions.

Download the full document here:
(more…)

July 11 2013 at 03:15pm
By SHERLISSA PETERS

Pietermaritzburg – The investigating officer who charged a KwaZulu-Natal businessman with defrauding the Education Department was recalled to the witness stand on Wednesday.

Alan Nixon, who was the first State witness against businessman Jabulani Mabaso, was recalled by the defence following the State’s closure of their case at the Pietermaritzburg High Court.

This came on the back of the testimony of David Ndlovu, a former senior education official, who claimed he told Nixon at the start of the investigation there was nothing in the agreement between Mabaso and the department that precluded him from making a profit.

Yet Mabaso was still charged with inflating the price of stationery.

Initially it was alleged that Mabaso and his company, Indiza Infrastructure Solutions, defrauded the department of R200 million between 2005 and 2007, when he supplied stationery to schools.

However, the State then made an about-turn and conceded Mabaso was allowed to make a profit on the stationery he provided to the department, and the charges were dropped.

Mabaso was also charged with fraud for not passing on discounts to the department and for producing fake invoices.

The State is still pursuing a conviction on these charges.

Ndlovu said business people were entitled to make a profit from any business with the government, and he had spoken to Nixon about the case and submitted a 20-page affidavit in this regard.

Nixon disputed Ndlovu had informed him that Mabaso was entitled to a profit.

Original article here

A question mark continues to hang over the head of former Pietermaritzburg businessman Jabulani Mabaso with witnesses in his fraud trial contradicting each other over whether or not he could profit when he procured stationery for the KwaZulu-Natal Education Department.

Yesterday the former investigating officer, Alan Nixon, told Pietermaritzburg High Court Acting Judge Kobus Booysens that he had two consultations with former senior education official Themba Ndhlovu.

Nixon said Ndhlovu told him Mabaso’s company, Indiza Infrastructure Solutions, was supposed to supply the stationery at cost and the department was supposed to benefit from discounts.

But, when Ndhlovu testified on Tuesday, he said there was nothing precluding Mabaso from making a profit, which, he claims, he told Nixon.

He also said that there was nothing preventing Mabaso’s other company from being a supplier to Indiza.

The trial continues.

-Pietermaritzburg Bureau

View the original article

By Sharika Regchand

The policeman who charged a businessman with defrauding the provincial Education Department allegedly knew the businessman was allowed to make a profit doing what he did – but charged him anyway – it emerged in the Pietermaritzburg High Court yesterday.

David Themba Ndhlovu, a former senior education official, claimed he told investigator Alan Nixon that there was nothing in businessman Jabulani Mabaso’s agreement with the department precluding him from making a profit.

But Mabaso was still charged with inflating the price of stationery – which the State conceded, at the end of its case, that he be discharged of.

Mabaso was also charged with fraud for not passing on discounts to the department and for producing fake invoices.

The State is still pursuing a conviction on these charges.

Ndhlovu said business people were entitled to make a profit from any business with the government “within certain perimeters”. He said that he had spoken to Nixon about the case and even made a 20-page affidavit in this regard, of which he still had an electronic copy.

Mabaso’s advocate, Willie Vermeulen SC, said: “Remarkably no such affidavit is contained in the docket.”

Ndhlovu said he had responded to several draft affidavits, sent to him by Nixon, until he signed the one that “best articulated” his view.

Mabaso’s defence against the remaining charges is that he was allowed to provide the department with his own invoices and supporting documents reflecting a list of items supplied, to receive payment for stationery purchased, and that he did not have to forge invoices. Ndhlovu was unable to contradict this.

Mabaso was paid a management fee, he said, for the costs of running his business, staff, setting up his system, the hiring of warehouses to store the stationery and to pack and unpack the material.

The case was to continue today.

View the original article

By Sharika Regchand

AN INVESTIGATOR in the fraud case of businessman Jabulani Mabaso was given a tongue-lashing by a Pietermaritzburg High Court judge yesterday for failing to ensure the presence of two witnesses in court.

Mabaso’s company, Indiza Infrastructure Solutions, had an agreement with the provincial Education Department to supply stationery to schools, and allegedly defrauded it between 2005 and 2007 by producing fake invoices, not passing on discounts, and increasing the price of stationery.

Yesterday, Colonel Colin Naidoo was interrogated by Acting Judge Kobus Booyens on why the investigating officer in the case, Alan Nixon, and former department employee Themba Ndlovu were absent despite having been subpoenaed.

Naidoo said Nixon was on holiday and could not cancel his trip, which had been paid for, and Ndlovu had been given the subpoena only on Friday.

The judge replied: “I get the impression that the courts are treated with absolute contempt recently.” Naidoo said it was not his intention to frustrate the court in any way.

Previously, Mabaso’s advocate, Willie Vermeulen SC, applied for a discharge, and the State conceded this only on 12 charges relating to him putting a mark-up on the stationery.

All along the State maintained that Mabaso was meant to charge the costs seen on supplier invoices in return for a management fee.

Mabaso denied this from the outset, saying he was entitled to make a profit.

The case was adjourned until today for the witnesses to testify.

View original article

Download document here:

Dube Practice Note

This is a brief report on the legal case of the ZDCPA against BCR and RSE. We deal first with some important aspects, and then provide a summary of the legal steps taken to date

OUR CASE IS STRONG
1. We are fighting for the land that was given to BCR (Mr Taylor’s company) and to RSE (Dr Sokhela’s company) in 2009 when the community was given 20% of the shares in their companies.
2. We are asking the Court to set aside the 2009 settlement agreements and to order that the land must go to the community.

Download the full document here:

20130602 Brief Report.2

A. INTRODUCTION:

1. The beauty and terror of legal concepts is that they are at the same time both completely abstract and totally immersed in real life situations. The above Honourable Court is saddled with the task of determining whether the administrative settlement of the Dube Community’s land claim is consistent with the purpose of the Legislature in its definition of a restoration of a right contained in section 1 of the Restitution of Land Rights Act No 22 of 1994 (“the Restitution Act”).

Download full document here:

HEADS_ZWELABANTU-BLYTHEDALE

1. Albie Sachs The Strange Alchemy of Life and Law, p272

2. Mphela and Others v Haakdoornbult Boerdery CC and Others 2008 (4) SA 488 CC Par 32; Kwalindile Community v King Sebata Dalindyebo Municipality 2013 ZACC Par 43

3. Farjas (Pty) Ltd & another v Regional Land Claims Commissioner, KwaZulu-Natal 1998 (2) SA 900 LCC at par 41

Download the full document here:
(more…)

Download the document here:
(more…)