A financial adviser who failed to deliver air fryers after receiving R1,000 from a colleague and did not repay the money has won a legal battle to overturn his debarment, with the Financial Services Tribunal finding that the conduct did not establish dishonesty under financial services law.
The tribunal set aside the debarment of Vukosi Clifford Siweya, a former testamentary agent and representative of Quill Consulting Services, ruling that the company had failed to follow a procedurally fair process and had not established a proper basis to conclude that he no longer met the required standards of honesty and integrity.
In its decision dated October 29, 2026, the tribunal found that the disputes relied on by the company largely concerned private debts, workplace misconduct and contractual issues rather than the rendering of financial services.
Colleagues left unpaid
According to the ruling, Siweya received R1,000 from one colleague between November 2025 and January 2026 to purchase air fryers on her behalf.
He also received R400 from another colleague for fuel.
However, he did not supply the air fryers or repay either colleague, and subsequently stopped taking their calls.
In March 2026, both colleagues deposed to affidavits at police stations, with one describing the matter as fraud.
Siweya acknowledged that he owed the R1,400 but maintained that the arrangements were private transactions that had gone wrong rather than fraudulent dealings. He offered to repay the money in instalments.
The tribunal said his conduct was not to be condoned. However, it found that the affidavits described unfulfilled promises and unpaid debts but did not establish that the representations had been false when they were made.
“These were private arrangements between colleagues, involving no client, client money or financial service,” the tribunal found, concluding that the allegations did not prove dishonesty for the purposes of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services (FAIS) Act.
Fuel card allegations
Quill Consulting Services also relied on allegations concerning Siweya’s use of a company fuel card, which was issued to him when he began working as a testamentary agent in October 2025.
The card was restricted to fuel purchases for business travel, with unauthorised expenditure recoverable from his salary.
In February 2026, the company’s finance department was informed by the fuel-card provider that Siweya had allegedly filled his vehicle and then a container with fuel. The petrol station had reportedly refused the transactions.
A subsequent transaction report showed multiple purchases within short intervals and fuel volumes exceeding the capacity of his vehicle’s 32-litre tank.
Siweya admitted making several transactions on February 1, 2026, and acknowledged that his use of the card breached company policy. However, he denied dishonesty.
The company charged him with misconduct relating to the colleagues’ money and the fuel card. A disciplinary hearing proceeded in his absence on March 26, 2026, and he was dismissed.
The tribunal stressed that the dismissal was not before it and that its decision concerned only the debarment.
It found that the fuel-card allegations related primarily to the employment relationship and company policy.
The tribunal also questioned the strength of the evidence supporting dishonesty, noting that the alleged container incident was based on a second-hand report of a telephone call, the transactions had been refused, and the transaction report had not been adequately explained.
Furthermore, the allegations and supporting evidence had not been properly put to Siweya during the debarment process.
Company failed to consider his response
Quill Consulting Services notified Siweya on July 24, 2026, of its intention to debar him, citing alleged dishonesty, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unprofessional conduct and failure to comply with company policies.
However, the notice did not provide particulars of the alleged conduct, identify the people involved, specify the relevant dates or disclose the evidence on which the company intended to rely.
Siweya responded by email at 7.27am on August 3, 2026, denying the allegations and requesting further details and supporting documents. He also asked for an extension to respond.
The following day, the company proceeded with the debarment, recording that it had not received submissions from him.
The tribunal found that this was incorrect because his response had been submitted before the deadline.
The company only acknowledged his email on August 6, after the debarment decision had already been made. It referred him to its human resources department for the documents and gave him until the end of that day to respond.
The tribunal found that the company had failed to provide adequate notice of the case against him, consider his response and comply with the procedural requirements governing debarment.
It also noted that the debarment notice had failed to inform him of his right to apply for reconsideration.
The panel said the record did not show that the company had independently assessed whether Siweya met the fit-and-proper requirements, as distinct from relying on a disciplinary outcome reached in his absence.
Debarment cannot be used to settle workplace disputes
Under section 14 of the FAIS Act, a financial services provider must debar a representative if it is satisfied that the person no longer meets the applicable fit-and-proper requirements, including honesty and integrity.
However, the tribunal emphasised that debarment is intended to protect the public and is not an additional disciplinary punishment.
It said workplace misconduct or a breach of an employment rule does not automatically establish that a person lacks the honesty and integrity required under the Act.
The tribunal also referred to the Financial Sector Conduct Authority’s Guidance Notice 1 of 2019, which cautions financial services providers against using debarment to resolve contractual or other grievances.
It found that the unpaid money owed to the colleagues was a private dispute that could be resolved through repayment or civil recovery, while the fuel-card allegations concerned company policy and the employment relationship.
The tribunal said neither issue, on the evidence presented, justified debarment.
Debarment set aside
The tribunal ruled that the matter did not need to be referred back to Quill Consulting Services for reconsideration because the allegations relied on did not provide a sufficient basis for debarment.
It granted the application for reconsideration and set aside the company’s August 4, 2026, decision to debar Siweya.
However, the ruling does not overturn his dismissal from employment or prevent the company, his colleagues or other affected parties from pursuing any available civil, contractual or labour remedies.
The tribunal made clear that its decision related solely to the debarment and did not determine the fairness of his dismissal.
