Alpheous turns down govt’s E435 000 settlement

Government has offered to pay Alpheous Mfana Nxumalo an estimated E435 767.33 in a bid to settle a salary dispute, a figure far below the nearly E2 million he is demanding under his fixed-term contract.

The case, involving Nxumalo versus the principal secretary in the prime minister’s office and others, centres on a dispute over unpaid salary and an alleged contempt of court order.

Nxumalo’s contract provides for an annual basic salary of E653 651 under Grade F3 and runs for three years from October 2025.

Based on this, he is claiming not less than E1 960 953 in salary over the contract period, excluding allowances and benefits.

In a correspondence dated April 20, Magagula Attorneys informed the attorney general that they had rejected government’s offer in its entirety after consulting with their client.

“We have been instructed to reject your offer in its entirety,” the law firm stated.

The rejection follows a letter from the attorney general’s office dated April 17, in which government proposed to settle the matter by paying Nxumalo a lump sum equivalent to eight months’ salary at Grade F3, less statutory deductions.

“Would your client accept payment of a compound sum equivalent to his salary at Grade F3 multiplied by eight months, less statutory deductions, in full and final settlement of the dispute over the unworkable contract of employment?” reads part of the offer.

However, Magagula Attorneys argued that the proposed settlement was misplaced and did not address the issues brought before court.

“Before court is a pending contempt of court application designed to enforce a court order granted in favour of our client on January 21 directing your clients to pay the outstanding salary due to ours,” the firm stated.

ALSO READ | Why health crisis worsened

The attorneys further argued that the matter before court was not one of unfair dismissal, making the government’s offer inappropriate.

“The issue before court is not an action for unfair dismissal wherein the kind of offer you made is permissible. Our client has not been dismissed from work, hence your offer to give him eight months’ damages in settlement is irrelevant,” they stated.

They added that government should instead be negotiating payment terms for the outstanding salary, rather than attempting to unilaterally cancel the fixed-term contract.

Magagula Attorneys also accused government of disregarding a court order, describing its conduct as contemptuous and linked this to provisions of the Government Liabilities Act of 1967.

The firm further raised concerns about the role of the attorney general, arguing that it had overstepped its mandate by engaging in matters reserved for the employer.

They maintained that any discussions relating to the possible termination of Nxumalo’s contract should be handled by the Civil Service Commission in line with Section 187 of the Constitution.

They also questioned what went wrong with arrangement made in December 2025, where a special holding post was allegedly created to place Nxumalo within the public service.

The attorneys emphasised that Nxumalo had the right to be heard before any termination of his contract and such a process must be conducted by the rightful employer.

RELATED | Court presses govt to table Alpheous’ salary offer

They concluded by stating that any offer to cancel the contract must include full payment of the 36-month salary, along with all benefits, including car allowance, housing allowance and cellphone allowance for the duration of the contract.

“Client also insists on the payment of his 25% gratuity provided for in the fixed-term contract. Anything less than this is unacceptable,” the firm stated.