INVESTIGATION REPORT

SOUTHSPAN LADYSMITH
FC1005/2018

CONTENTS

Mandate
Scope
Restrictions and Limitations
Methodology
Summary of Evidence
Conclusions
Recommendations

Forensic Consultants (Pty) Ltd Page 1 Strictly Private and Confidential

 INVESTIGATION REPORT
SOUTHSPAN LADYSMITH
FC1005/2018

Mandate
1. On 7 May 2018 we were instructed by Southspan, a division of Southey Holdings (Pty) Ltd,
to provide forensic investigative services into the theft of two coils from their premises in
Ladysmith.

Scope
2 The agreed scope of work is to:
 Determine the facts relating to the theft of the coils;
 Determine which policies, procedures and delegation of authority were not complied with;
 Gather such evidence as may be necessary to convene a disciplinary enquiry against any
Southspan employee/s should the facts warrant it;
 Make recommendations iro any criminal and/or civil processes.

Restrictions and Limitations

3.1 We were not required to and did not undertake an audit in terms of International Standards
on Auditing or International Standard on Review Engagements (or relevant national
standards or practices.) Consequently, we do not express any audit assurance.
3.2 The scope of our work was limited to a review and analysis of documentation and electronic
information made available to us and specific enquiries undertaken in pursuance of our
mandate. We have not verified the authenticity or validity of all the documentation made
available to us.
3.3 This report is prepared for your exclusive use and may not be disclosed to any other party
without our prior written consent.
3.4 If additional or new documentation or information is brought to our attention subsequent to
the date of this report, which would affect the findings detailed below, we reserve the right to
amend and qualify our findings, conclusions and recommendations accordingly.
3.5 We were severely restricted due to the lack of information from IPSS.

Forensic Consultants (Pty) Ltd Page 2 Strictly Private and Confidential

 INVESTIGATION REPORT
SOUTHSPAN LADYSMITH
FC1005/2018

Methodology
4.1 We attended to Southspan on 10 May 2018. We interviewed and/or corresponded with the
following persons:

4.1.1 Mr Trevor Elrick, General Manager;

4.1.2 Mr Rakesh Bumdhu, Logistics Manager;
4.1.3 Mr Desmond Oosthuis, Production Manager;
4.1.4 Mr Thabani Mbatha, QC Assistant;
4.1.5 Mr Matthew Hendy, IPSS Investigator;
4.1.6 Const. Mweli, SAPS Investigating Officer;
4.1.7 Mr Dylan Meyrick, IPSS Operational Manager.

4.2 We have reviewed documentation as provided which will be referred to herebelow.

Summary of Evidence
5.1 On 6 April 2018 Coil no. 7HC691C00 (0.44x1255mm) was received into stock. See
Annexure “A”.
5.2 On 30 April 2018 a month end stock take was undertaken. Coil no.7HC691C00 was not
recorded.
Fifteen (15) 0.55x1225mm coils, including Coil no. 7GB712A10, were counted and
recorded. See Annexure “B”.
5.3 The stock count sheets were forwarded by Mr Oosthuis to Preelan Reddy who queried the
non-recording of Coil no. 7HC691C00. In response, on 2 May 2018 Mr Oosthuis confirmed
via email that he has no record of Coil no. 7HC691C00. See Annexure “C”.
5.4 The SSIP (?) Guarding Entry control for Visitors and Vehicles book reflects that on 4 May
2018 the last vehicle entered at 14.30 and left at 15.00. This was a Rudnev truck for
collection. See Annexure “D”.
5.5 As per the IPSS Occurrence Book (OB) for the site, Security Officers 2120 and 2495
reported for duty on 4 May 2018 at 18.00. See Annexure “E”.

Forensic Consultants (Pty) Ltd Page 3 Strictly Private and Confidential

 INVESTIGATION REPORT
SOUTHSPAN LADYSMITH
FC1005/2018

5.6 As per the IPSS OB for their offices, an anonymous call was received on 4 May 2018 at
18.20 that a robbery is in progress on site and that Security Officer Hlubi was despatched.
See Annexure “F”.
There is no record that site security was contacted. There is no entry in the site OB of any
corresponding incident.
5.7 IPSS informed that the alarm on site, as monitored by themselves, triggered three times on
4 May 2018 between 18.00 and 20.00. There is no record thereof in neither the office nor
the site OB. Mr Elrick was not informed thereof.
5.8 The security officers stationed on site have been provided with keys to the factory by Mr
Erick in the event of an emergency. At all relevant times hereto the keys to the forklifts were
left in the ignition.
5.9 The site OB (Annexure “E”) reflects that Security Manager attended to the site at 23.59 and
found all in order.
5.10 During the morning of Monday 7 May 2018 IPSS received another anonymous call
informing them of the whereabouts of stolen south span property. The caller threatened to
contact Mr Elrick directly if IPSS did not take action this time.
5.11 The premises were attended to on 7 May 2018 together with the SAPS. The items found
are depicted as per the attached images.
5.12 Partially consumed Coil no. 7GB712A10 was recovered. The external cover of Coil no.
7HC691C00 was recovered.
5.13 The SAPS declined to arrest the person found in possession of the stolen property. It is
understood the person in question claimed to have purchased the coil/s for R20 000 but
refused to provide further action. The matter was reported to the SAPS and is being
investigated by Const.Mweli under Ezakheni CAS 43/5/2008. It is further understood that
the suspect has fled. Const Mweli can provide no explanation for the failure of the SAPS to
effect an arrest.
5.14 Numerous interactions and correspondence were undertaken with IPSS. Initially they
insisted that Messrs Oosthuis and Bumdhu be subected to polygraph examinations. They
could provide no reasonable cause to do so.
5.15 A number of written questions were put to IPSS on 21 May 2018 without response. See
Annexure “G”.
5.16 On 30 May 2016 IPSS submitted their investigation report. See Annexure “H”.

Forensic Consultants (Pty) Ltd Page 4 Strictly Private and Confidential

 INVESTIGATION REPORT
SOUTHSPAN LADYSMITH
FC1005/2018

Conclusions
6.1 The responses from IPSS are entirely unsatisfactory for the following reasons:
 IPSS have consistently refused to provide a print-out of alarm activity and declined to
describe their SOP in such an event.
 IPSS make no mention of the anonymous call received on 4 May 2018 in their report. There
is no explanation as to why s/o Hlubi attended to site almost six hours later. It was
understood that s/o Hlubi was in the vicinity of where the Southspan property was found
during that period. IPSS have provided no detail in respect thereof.
 IPSS have consistently failed to provide copies of the results of the polygraph examinations
undertaken by their staff. It is unknown who was tested and what questions were posed.
 It is unclear who the security officer is that purports to implicate Southspan staff. The fact
that he refuses to make a statement impacts negatively upon his credibility. The allegation
against them and Kallie’s Transport is mere conjecture.

6.2 There is no reasonable basis to subject any Southspan to polygraph examinations despite
IPSS calling for it.
Or courts have considered polygraph examinations with great circumspection and
have inter alia held that:
 A polygraph test does not provide conclusive proof of guilt;
 A polygraph test can show no more than the existence or non-existence of
deception.
 The mere fact that a person lies cannot in itself be proof that the person is
guilty of a crime.
 It can only prove that the person is dishonest not that he is necessarily
guilty of a crime or misconduct.

The Labour Court held in the matter of Mustek Ltd v Tsabadi, which is a matter
similar to the matter at hand that the result of the polygraph test is evidence in
corroboration of a party’s evidence and may be taken into account as a factor
assessing the credibility of a witness and in assessing the probabilities. In this
matter the Court rejected arguments that the accused employee may have had
Forensic Consultants (Pty) Ltd Page 5 Strictly Private and Confidential
 INVESTIGATION REPORT
SOUTHSPAN LADYSMITH
FC1005/2018

access to the area where the laptops may have been stolen and that accused
employee had unusually worked on a Saturday during which the laptops were
stolen and that the accused employee would have the specific expertise to dispose
of the laptop.

6.3 The crux of the matter is that there is no other circumstantial evidence against any
Southspan liking them to the theft of the coils. Even if a Southspan employee were
to “fail” his polygraph it can take the matter no further. On the other hand, the
apparent results of the polygraphs of the IPSS staff support the circumstantial
evidence.

6.4 We conclude that there is no evidence that any Southspan employee was involved
in the theft. The evidence clearly implicates employees of the contract security
company IPSS, and possibly employee/s of the contract scrap merchant, OR Singh.

Recommendations
7.1 IPSS be held liable for the loss of the 2 coils. This may be a contractual claim or a delictual
remedy which may require a legal opinion. I have not had sight of the contract with IPSS.
The contractual arrangements with security providers are generally inadequate and pro
forma in style that are one sided in their favour particularly iro vicarious liability. You may
require to revisit such contracts Once you have been compensated, consider termination.
7.2 Replace OR Singh.
7.3 Conduct a comprehensive security review of the site.
7.4 Install a cctv system including a camera in the guard room (preferably not by IPSS)
7.5 Implement a key control policy.

Forensic Consultants (Pty) Ltd Page 6 Strictly Private and Confidential