Mbabane – Nine employees of A.D. Enterprises (Pty) Ltd have been recommended for summary dismissal after a disciplinary hearing found them guilty of gross dishonesty arising from an alleged scheme in which stock was loaded onto delivery trucks but allegedly failed to reach customers.
The employees were accused of working in pairs, involving loaders and truck drivers, to manipulate picking slips after stock had been loaded and invoiced, allegedly creating the impression that certain goods had not left the company’s warehouse.
The disciplinary hearing was held at A.D. Enterprises at the Matsapha Industrial Site on July 15 and 22, 2026.
The employees who faced disciplinary action were Jabulani Lukhele, Obed Mangwe, Melusi Dlamini, Kwanda Zwane, Mcebo Mlangeni, Sabelo Khumalo, Mxolisi Dlamini, Simanga Dlamini, Jeremiah Madonsela and Nkululeko Mtsetfwa.
The first nine were found guilty on the charges preferred against them, although Lukhele and Mangwe were acquitted on their respective second counts. Mtsetfwa, the 10th respondent, was acquitted and discharged on the only count he faced.
The chairperson recommended summary dismissal for the employees found guilty, saying the company’s trust in them had irretrievably broken down.
How the alleged scheme worked
At the commencement of the proceedings, the initiator told the hearing that the group disciplinary case involving six truck drivers and four loaders arose from what she described as the same modus operandi used during March, April and May 2026.
The employees had been served with their respective charge sheets, dated and signed on July 10, 2026, and their rights had been explained to them.
Although they had the right to representation and to call witnesses, they waived both rights.
The hearing was conducted in both English and siSwati, with the scribe interpreting where necessary. The procedure and the stages of the disciplinary process were also explained to both parties.
All 10 respondents pleaded not guilty.
A.D. Enterprises operate in the food and liquor distribution industry and have procedures governing the movement of stock from the time a retail customer places an order until the consignment reaches the customer.
According to evidence presented, once an order is received by the Invoicing Department, clerks capture it into the system and generate a picking slip.
The picking slip contains the customer’s name, order number, date, item code, item description and quantity ordered, as well as space to record the quantity actually loaded where it differs from the order.
Pickers, loaders and truck drivers then use the document to pick, check, pack, wrap and load stock.
The hearing was told that loaders and truck drivers are required to be together when checking, wrapping and loading stock into trucks according to the allocated picking slips.
Only a loader and an invoicing clerk are authorized to make entries on a picking slip.
A tick next to an item indicates that the item has been loaded and that the customer should be invoiced for it. A tick and cancellation accompanied by the word “Ok” also indicates that the item was loaded.
A simple cancellation indicates that the item was not loaded and should therefore not be invoiced.
After invoicing, the invoicing clerk draws a diagonal line across the picking slip and writes the invoice number on it to show that the invoicing process has been completed.
Three invoicing clerks Treasure Malinga, Nokuthula Hadebe and Nelisiwe Gamedze testified and corroborated the procedure.
They told the hearing that they had never invoiced an item whose line was already ticked and cancelled unless the word “Ok” appeared above the cancellation.
The company alleged that the employees exploited the movement of picking slips between the warehouse and invoicing department.
The alleged practice was for an item to be ticked after it had been loaded, resulting in the invoicing clerk invoicing the customer. The picking slip and invoice would then return to the warehouse for preparation of the driver’s delivery schedule, where the item was allegedly cancelled or its quantity reduced.
The chairperson found that this could create the impression that the goods had never left the warehouse, while the customer would later report the goods as missing.
Kwaluseni and Mashayitafula incidents
One of the examples involved Ok Grocer-Kwaluseni and Order No. S0184134.
The hearing found that 10 units of Refreshhh Apple 6x2L were loaded into truck SSD 014 AM on April 14, 2026.
The item was allegedly ticked, allowing it to be invoiced, but the picking slip was later cancelled.
The warehouse stock summary showed 1,229 units of the product in stock on April 13, despite the respondents allegedly claiming that the item was out of stock.
The customer subsequently claimed the 10 units as a short delivery, and A.D. Enterprises issued a tax credit note.
The same picking slip contained two lines for Refreshhh Grape 6x2L, each for five units. One line was cancelled while the other was ticked, resulting in the customer being invoiced for five units.
The hearing also considered a Pick n Pay-Mashayitafula order involving one unit of C/MOR ADT Tuna 10×1.75kg.
The item was allegedly ticked and invoiced but subsequently cancelled. The invoice showed the item as “N/R”, meaning “Not Received”, and the customer later received a tax credit note for the short delivery.
However, the chairperson declined to find the respondents guilty on that count because of discrepancies in the customer’s Goods Received Voucher.
The chairperson said an item for Yum Yum Peanut Butter Crunchy appeared to have inexplicably swapped places with the tuna item on the GRV, making it unfair to convict the respondents on that count, although the stock remained unaccounted for at the company’s expense.
Granadilla shortage
Another charge concerned Shoprite-SM Manzini Junction.
The hearing found that five units of Refreshhh Granadilla 6x2L were allegedly loaded into truck NSD 340 DH.
The picking slip was ticked and the customer was invoiced, but the quantity was subsequently changed from five to four and the item line cancelled.
The respondents claimed that only four units were loaded because they had run out of stock.
However, the warehouse stock summary showed 12 units available on the relevant date.
The customer subsequently lodged a credit request for one missing unit, resulting in A.D. Enterprises issuing a tax credit note.
Other alleged shortages
A separate case involving Kwanda Zwane and Melusi Dlamini concerned four units of Pepsi Cola 6x2L destined for Shoprite-Manzini Bhunu Mall.
The four units were allegedly loaded into truck NSD 340 DH, but the picking slip was later changed to show only three units.
The respondents allegedly claimed that only three units had been loaded because of insufficient stock.
The warehouse stock summary, however, showed 2,860 units available on April 2, 2026.
Shoprite subsequently claimed one unit as a short delivery and the company issued a tax credit note.
Another incident involved one unit of Viv Kalamansi 6x500ml loaded into truck JSD 855 DM for Shoprite-Manzini Bhunu Mall.
The item was allegedly ticked and invoiced before being cancelled. The respondents claimed the item was out of stock, while the warehouse stock summary showed 197 units available on March 26.
The customer subsequently lodged a credit request for the missing unit and a tax credit note was issued.
Malkerns incident
Loader Sabelo Khumalo and truck driver Melusi Dlamini were charged over an incident involving Shoprite-Malkerns.
The hearing found that one unit of NDAY DS Smooth L/F Vanilla 6x900g was loaded into truck VSD 069 DM.
The item was ticked and invoiced but later cancelled.
The respondents claimed it was out of stock, but the warehouse stock summary showed 248 units available on April 30, the day before the customer’s order was delivered.
Shoprite-Malkerns subsequently lodged a credit request for the missing unit and the company issued a tax credit note.
Mirinda Orange incident
The hearing also dealt with a delivery to Mankayane Usave involving truck SSD 013 AM.
Two units of Mirinda Orange 24x300ml Can were allegedly loaded after the item line was ticked and the customer invoiced.
The item was later cancelled.
The loader allegedly claimed that the product was out of stock, while the truck driver’s written statement said they had loaded one case of Mirinda and that the loader had been told by packers that it was the only one available.
The truck driver said the loader had forgotten to cancel the quantity of two.
However, the customer lodged a credit request for two units, not one, and the company issued a tax credit note for the two units.
The chairperson questioned why the customer had not acknowledged receipt of one unit and claimed only one as short-delivered if one unit had actually been delivered.
Mtsetfwa acquitted
The only respondent to be acquitted was Nkululeko Mtsetfwa.
He was charged alongside loader Simanga Dlamini over one unit of CG Vanilla Dream 4x550g destined for Pick n Pay-Mbabane.
The item was allegedly ticked and invoiced before being cancelled.
The loader claimed the item had not been loaded because it was out of stock.
Mtsetfwa, however, said he was not present when the loader checked and wrapped the customer’s stock into pallets. He said he only came later after being instructed to help load the consignment because there was no small truck available for the customer’s small order.
He maintained the same position in his written statement.
The loader confirmed Mtsetfwa’s version during the hearing.
The chairperson said this meant there was insufficient evidence to establish that Mtsetfwa had colluded with the loader from the point where the targeted stock was identified and prepared.
Although the stock did not reach the customer and Mtsetfwa could potentially have become an accessory after the fact, the chairperson noted that the common allegation in the other charges was collusion between the loader and driver from the beginning.
Mtsetfwa was therefore acquitted and discharged.
New procedure stopped alleged manipulation
The hearing heard that management changed the procedure in June 2026 after the alleged pattern was detected.
Invoicing clerks were instructed to stop sending picking slips back to the warehouse after invoicing and to send only the invoices.
The chairperson examined five picking slips from June and July 2026 dated June 1, June 15, July 6, July 7 and July 8.
None contained an item line that had simultaneously been ticked and cancelled.
The chairperson considered this evidence that the alleged practice had stopped after the change in procedure.
The initiator and witnesses were cross-examined by the respondents, but the chairperson found that nothing arising from the cross-examination undermined the company’s evidence.
Employees plead for their jobs
After the guilty findings, the employees were given an opportunity to present mitigating factors.
Lukhele said he had worked for the company since 2006 and wanted to continue working there. He maintained his innocence, said it was his first disciplinary hearing and asked for leniency because he had two children dependent on him.
Mangwe, who joined the company in 2024, also maintained his innocence and said it was his first disciplinary hearing. He said he had four children who depended on him and asked to remain employed.
Dlamini, who had been with the company since 2014, said he had two children and asked for leniency while maintaining that he was innocent.
Zwane, also employed since 2014, said he had one child and wanted to continue working for the company.
Mlangeni, who joined in 2008, said he had two children as well as two nieces whose upkeep had been entrusted to him. He also maintained his innocence.
Khumalo, employed since 2014, said he had one child and asked the company to be lenient.
Mxolisi Dlamini, who had worked for the company since 2014, said he had two children and wanted to retain his job.
Jeremiah Madonsela, who joined in 2011, said he had three children and asked for leniency.
The ninth respondent, Nkululeko Mtsetfwa, had been employed since 2024 and said he had five children. He maintained his innocence.
However, the chairperson noted that the evidence had established guilt against the first nine respondents on the counts for which they were convicted and described their explanations as false, far-fetched and misleading.
Company calls for maximum sanction
The initiator opposed the employees’ pleas for leniency, arguing that the company relies heavily on the unconditional honesty of its loaders and truck drivers.
She said the employees are responsible for checking, loading and transporting stock from the warehouse to retail customers across the country and are therefore integral to the business.
According to her, systematic dishonesty by employees in these positions could financially cripple the company.
She consequently called for the maximum sanction permitted by law.
The chairperson considered the employees’ length of service and family responsibilities but found that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating factors.
The chairperson said the employment relationship depended on trust and that this trust had been irretrievably broken by the acts of dishonesty.
Reference was made to Section 36(b) of the Employment Act of 1980, as amended, which provides that it is fair for an employer to terminate an employee’s services where the employee is guilty of a dishonest act against the employer, a member of the employer’s family or another employee of the undertaking.
The chairperson also relied on Offence No. 38 of A.D. Enterprises’ Disciplinary Code, which deals with acts of dishonesty.
The final recommendation was therefore summary dismissal of the employees found guilty.
Discussion about this post