The Industrial Court has found the Eswatini Medical Christian University (EMCU) Registrar and Acting Vice Chancellor, Sebenta Menon, and Council Chairman Dr Boy Bongani Dlamini in contempt of court and warned that they could be committed to prison for 30 days if they fail to comply with a court order within three days.
In a judgment delivered by Industrial Court Judge Lungile Msimango, the court ordered the respondents to immediately purge their contempt by withdrawing an immigration letter seeking the cancellation of Vice Chancellor Paul Seung-Hung Yang’s work permit and restoring him to the full powers, functions and authority of the Vice Chancellor position.
The court further directed the respondents to withdraw a cease and desist notice issued on January 27, 2026, and to revoke any resolutions or directives transferring Yang’s functions to Menon or any other individual.
Judge Msimango ruled that failure to comply with the order within three days would result in Menon and Dlamini being committed to gaol for a period of 30 days.
The matter stems from an urgent application brought by Yang on December 30, 2025, after EMCU allegedly sought to terminate his employment contract. Yang had approached the court seeking an order staying the termination of his employment pending the finalisation of the matter.
The court granted an interim order on the same day, staying the operation of the decision purporting to terminate Yang’s contract of employment pending the determination of the main case under Industrial Court case number 426/2025.
According to the judgment, the matter was later postponed on several occasions after the parties informed the court that negotiations were ongoing.
However, Yang subsequently filed contempt proceedings against EMCU, Dlamini and Menon after alleging that the respondents had violated the court order despite having knowledge of it.
Yang argued before the court that the respondents had effectively undermined the interim order by stripping him of his powers and responsibilities as Vice Chancellor while publicly communicating that his employment had been terminated effective March 31, 2026.
He alleged that the respondents removed him from key managerial and operational responsibilities, reassigned his duties to Menon, revoked his financial authority and excluded him from decision-making processes.
Yang further alleged that the respondents issued a cease and desist notice preventing him from acting in his official capacity and publicly announced that he no longer held substantive authority within the university.
The judgment further records that the respondents wrote to the Chief Immigration Officer requesting the termination of Yang’s work permit effective March 31, 2026, on the basis that his contract of employment had allegedly been terminated.
Yang argued that the actions constituted deliberate defiance of the court order and were aimed at rendering the interim order ineffective.
He also submitted that the respondents backdated documents in an attempt to create the impression that decisions relating to his contract had been made before the court proceedings were instituted.
According to the judgment, Yang argued that a council resolution purportedly passed on December 22, 2025 referred to legal proceedings that had not yet been instituted at the time, as the application was only filed on December 29, 2025.
The respondents opposed the contempt application and argued that there had been no violation of the court order because Yang remained physically at work.
They contended that the interim order merely stayed the acceptance of Yang’s resignation and did not prevent them from managing the institution or taking administrative decisions following his resignation.
The respondents further argued that Yang had voluntarily resigned and that they were entitled to regulate his functions during his notice period to ensure the proper functioning of the university.
They denied that their actions amounted to a termination or suspension and maintained that the cease and desist notice and reassignment of duties did not violate the interim order.
The respondents also submitted that the court order did not expressly prohibit them from carrying out broader administrative functions relating to the management of the institution.
However, Judge Msimango rejected the respondents’ arguments and held that all the requirements necessary to establish contempt of court had been satisfied.
The court found that the interim order granted on December 30, 2025 remained valid and that the respondents had full knowledge of it after it was served on them on the same day.
Judge Msimango held that the respondents had failed to comply with the order because Yang had been stripped of his powers, excluded from governance processes and prevented from functioning fully as Vice Chancellor despite remaining physically present at work.
The court stated that the purpose of the interim order was to preserve the status quo pending the finalisation of the dispute and that the respondents had failed to preserve that status quo.
The judgment further found that the immigration letter constituted a serious act of non-compliance because it sought to procure the cancellation of Yang’s work permit while the interim order was still operative.
Judge Msimango said the respondents had attempted to achieve indirectly what they had been interdicted from achieving directly, namely the removal of Yang from his position and from the country.
The court also found that evidence of willfulness and mala fides was overwhelming.
Judge Msimango stated that the alleged backdating of documents, the timing of the respondents’ actions, the issuance of the cease and desist notice and the communication with immigration authorities demonstrated deliberate attempts to circumvent the court order.
The judgment further stated that the respondents’ continued public communication asserting that Yang’s employment had been terminated amounted to an affront to the authority and dignity of the court.
Judge Msimango held that maintaining the appearance of employment while stripping Yang of all meaningful authority did not amount to compliance with the interim order.
The court further stated that there was no legitimate administrative justification for requesting the cancellation of Yang’s work permit while he remained an employee under the protection of the court order.
The respondents had also filed a counter-application seeking the dismissal of Yang’s main application for want of prosecution and the discharge of the interim order granted on December 30, 2025.
However, the court dismissed the counter-application after finding that the respondents approached the court with “unclean hands” because they had not complied with the existing court order.
Judge Msimango cited authorities on contempt of court and the doctrine of unclean hands, stating that litigants who disregard court orders cannot seek equitable relief from the same court until they have purged their contempt.
The court ultimately ordered the respondents to withdraw the immigration letter, retract the cease and desist notice, restore Yang to his full authority as Vice Chancellor and withdraw any directives transferring his powers.
The respondents were also ordered to pay costs of both the contempt proceedings and the counter-application on the attorney and own client scale.
Yang was represented by Zweli Shabangu of Magagula and Hlophe Attorneys while the respondents were represented by Modecai Donga of S.V Mdladla and Associates.
Discussion about this post