Capitec Employee Wins Tribunal Battle After Being Accused Over R100 From Colleague’s Fraud

It was the kind of work drama that could end a career in an instant, a WhatsApp message, a suspicious transaction, and R100 that sparked a legal battle between a Gugulethu bank employee and one of South Africa’s biggest banks.

A career on the line over a small sum

For nearly a decade, Mhleli Glwala had served customers at Capitec’s Gugulethu branch. That changed in June 2024 when a senior colleague, identified only as DM, defrauded a client through a phone banking app. DM stole R1,000, then messaged Glwala asking him to withdraw the cash, deposit R900 into DM’s son’s account, and keep R100 for himself.

Glwala says he thought he was helping a trusted senior, not participating in fraud. He even refused DM’s later request to delete the WhatsApp evidence and handed the messages to the bank’s forensic team.

From warning to debarment

The bank didn’t see it that way. After an investigation, including a polygraph test that suggested he was lying about his knowledge of the fraud, Glwala was found guilty of misconduct for “blindly” following instructions without verifying the source of the funds.

He received a final written warning and a two-day suspension. But months later, in December 2024, Capitec went further and moved to have him debarred from working in financial services altogether, a decision that would make it nearly impossible for him to find work in the industry.

The fight to clear his name

Glwala took the matter to the Financial Services Tribunal, insisting he was innocent and pointing to DM’s testimony, in which the colleague admitted to acting alone. He argued that the bank’s own disciplinary process had not found him guilty of dishonesty severe enough to warrant dismissal, let alone debarment.

He even offered to return the R100.

Capitec countered that, regardless of his claims, Glwala showed poor judgment, lacked integrity, and should have reported DM’s suspicious request to delete the WhatsApp message. They leaned heavily on the polygraph results to argue he was complicit.

The tribunal’s verdict

Presiding over the case, Advocate Kagiso Magano dismantled the bank’s argument, calling it speculative and unsupported by hard evidence. She noted that:

• DM’s unchallenged testimony supported Glwala’s version of events.

• There was no direct proof Glwala knew the money was stolen.

• The bank allowed him to continue working, which contradicted their claim that he was unfit for his role.

Magano stressed that debarment exists to protect the public from genuinely dishonest representatives, not to punish employees for errors in judgment without malicious intent.

“If the applicant’s actions were negligent, meaning he made a mistake without fraudulent intent, then debarment is a disproportionate and unjust sanction,” she said, setting aside the bank’s decision.

Why this case matters

For many South Africans, this case taps into a deeper conversation about workplace fairness, power dynamics, and whether companies sometimes use heavy-handed measures against staff over relatively small mistakes.

On social media, some have applauded Glwala for fighting back, while others argue that in banking, even small lapses in judgment can have big consequences.

What’s certain is that for Glwala, R100 nearly cost him everything and this time, the system sided with the little guy.

{Source: The Citizen}

Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter , TikTok and Instagram

For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com