Khulekile’s conduct revealed deficiencies within our system - Letshego

MBABANE - “It is important that I concede that the first respondent’s (Khulekile) conduct revealed deficiencies within our system, particularly the virtual loan application systems.”

These were some of the averments which were made by Letshego Financial Services (PTY) Limited Legal Consultancy Fezile Ndlovu, in the application against the female police officer, Khulekile Winfred Dlamini, who is alleged to have defrauded the institution.

Ndlovu related to the court that, in the first instance, and this was per their brief investigations, Khulekile took a loan with United Pay, a division of United Holdings.

She alleged that the said loan was taken by the first respondent (Khulekile) using the name of Nontsikeleko Phenduka Dlamini.

“When United Pay commenced with the deduction of the monthly instalments, the said Nontsikelelo Dlamini lodged a complaint against United Pay and the latter stopped the deductions. United Pay approached the first respondent who conceded that indeed she had committed the fraud,” alleged Ndlovu.

She went on to inform the court that, instead of finding a way to settle the debt she had created, Khulekile approached one of their (Letshego) agents, through the virtual applications.

Requested

“She presented herself as Nontsikelela Phenduka Dlamini and requested the applicant to settle the debt she had created at United Pay. The debt was settled for and on behalf of ‘Nontsikelelo Dlamini’ and the balance of the loan money was thereafter paid into ‘Nontsikelelo Dlamini’s bank account’’, contended the legal consultant. According to Ndlovu, a salary advice slip of Nontsikelelo was presented to the applicant and her employment confirmation was also confirmed by her employer. She alleged that also to be provided was Nontsikelelo’s proof of residence and identification document.

“However, when one looks at the identification document, it had been tampered with. This was not noticed by our sales agents and she accepted the loan application which was presented to her. It became succinct that same was forged. The name ‘Nontsikelelo’ has been externally incorporated,” she argued. The loan, according to Ndlovu, was paid into an account held with Swaziland Building Society.

“The account holder is ‘Ms. Nontsikelelo Dlamini’. The applicant disbursed an amount of E55 636.75 to United Pay for purposes of setting a debt which had been created fraudulently by the first respondent,” alleged the deponent (Ndlovu). She went on to narrate to the court that a further amount of E42 810 was deposited into the account of Nontsikelelo Dlamini.

“When the applicant commenced with the deductions of the loan repayment from the source of Ms. Nontsikelelo Dlamini’s salary, the latter approached the applicant and stated that she had never taken a loan with the applicant. She further stated that this was the second instance where a similar incident had occurred,” submitted the deponent.

Examined

Ndlovu brought it to the attention of the court that when the name of the account holder was carefully examined, it became clear that it had been tampered with. She said this was the extent of the financial prejudice suffered by the applicant.

“Finally, the first respondent misrepresented herself to be Mr. Nhlanhla Fana Myezi. Myezi, who is also employed by the Eswatini Government, as a police officer. As she did in the case involving a certain Mr. Gama, the first respondent submitted a salary advice slip and bank statements. The identification document appears to have been fraudulently tampered with. The Standard Bank statement has the same transactions as those that appear on the one presented on behalf of Mr. Gama,” alleged Ndlovu. She highlighted that the First National Bank account number was similar to the one that was presented in Gama’s case.

“It bears the number 62599987420. However, the name has been tampered with to read Nhlanhla Myezi. The applicant suffered financial prejudice in the amount of E60 000 in respect of the first respondent’s misrepresentation herein. The Standard Bank account details were presented by the first respondent to confirm credit worthiness. However, payment was directed to be made into the First National Bank account. The account is the same. However, only the name was changed to fit the narrative of the ‘loan applicant’, she argued.

In total, according to Ndlovu, the applicant had suffered financial prejudice in the amount of E247 360.77.

“The applicant intends on instituting action proceedings against the first respondent for the recovery of the amount she fraudulently acquired from it. Furthermore, the applicant believes that the fraud was committed by a syndicate. The first respondent could not have committed the offences on her own,” submitted Ndlovu. She said it was the applicant’s belief that there were other individuals involved and some might be within the applicant’s enterprise.

“The only way the applicant can uncover the extent of the fraud is if it is granted access to bank accounts of the first respondent. The only way it can conduct investigations is if it gets a hold of the account details and the transactions made by the first respondent.

Evidence

In motivating the application, Ndlovu told the court that the first respondent was a police officer who was learned on issues of incriminating evidence or material, hence the decision to move the application on exparte basis (without the knowledge of the other party). She averred that in the event the first respondent was informed about the application, she might destroy any evidence she felt incriminated her.

“I am confident that the first respondent is in possession of the computer, cellphones, documents and other articles that were used in forging the documents presented to the applicant. These items can be destroyed by first the respondent or any person with whom she is working. All the documents were presented by her and the only reasonable assumption is that she is in possession thereof. It is also worth mentioning that there appears to be previous instances which affected other institutions. The first respondent is clearly on a trail of destruction,” she argued.

The orders were granted by Judge John Magagula.