1. The Unlucky Teacher
   

2. Acting Allowance

3. The SHHA Application That Never Was
   

 UNLUCKY TEACHER 

The complainant in this case, a Teacher received a letter of transfer which in his view was not authentic. His suspicions arose from the fact that:

1. It had no official letterhead

2. The signature appeared to have been traced,

3. It had no Under Flying Seal (u.f.s.) to his school head

4. It did not have the signature of the school head,

5. it did not reflect which school he had been transferred from

6. It was copied to his current school and not to his supposed new school.

Furthermore the School Head at the school where he had been transferred refused to accept him by reason of the fact that he was not in need of a Social Studies Teacher but a Religious Education Teacher. However, in questioning the transfer, the complainant attracted the ire of his School Head and Regional Education office and his request for assistance from higher authorities were not heeded. The teacher went back to his old school, taught there until end of term (26/11/04) and marked the end of year examinations. Come end of December, he did not receive his salary and upon enquiry he was informed that it had been terminated. Upon taking the issue with higher authorities, the termination of his salary was confirmed. He questioned why he was not availed notice, be it verbal or written and he was told to write a letter of complaint. He wrote his complaint letter but the issue was not attended to. Meanwhile no salary was posted for the months of January and February of the following year even though he was in post and executing his teaching duties.

It was on the basis of the above particulars that complainant approached Office of the ombudsman for assistance. In taking up the complaint the Officers at the Office of the Ombudsman were particularly struck by the fact that, over and above the strange nature of the letter of transfer, his salary was terminated:

• For the month of December when the school term ended on the 26th of November. Curiously the withheld salary was for the month when schools are in recess and when all teachers receive their salaries but are not executing their teaching duties due to the recess,

• The salary stoppage continued through January and February of the following year even though the Teacher was in post,

• There was no warning to him by his principals for him to either take up the transfer regardless of its peculiarities failing which his salary would be stopped.

The complainant however, was paid part of his salaries for the month of February. Initially the Office of the Chief Education Officer took the position that the Teacher had been mistakenly sent a copy instead of the original transfer letter. It further said that complainant had been assured of the authenticity of the transfer letter and was “given a hearing and explanation given”. Nothing was said about the stoppage of his salaries, the reasons for such stoppage and the arrear payment of his salaries. The Office of the Ombudsman then took up the issue with the Teaching Service Management. The Office expressed concern that 23 months after the assumption of the transfer post, the teacher’s salary was still being withheld. Furthermore the Office reasoned that the idea behind the salary stoppage was to compel the teacher to take up a new post and that the continued withholding of the salary was wrongful and unlawful punishment.

A few months later, the complainant received a letter granting authority for the payment of his arrear salaries for the months of November/December 2004 and first part of January 2005.

ACTING ALLOWANCE 

The complainant was first made to act before her confirmation. She gladly acted even though she was not drawing any acting allowance due to her non-confirmed status. After her confirmation in May 2005, she was formally appointed to act for a higher position. However, her Assistant Council Secretary refused to sign the recommendation and failed to put forward any reasons for his refusal to sign. Much later he signed the recommendation but refused to make any comments on it before passing it on to the Council Secretary.

Further still, the original recommendation then disappeared but in all that time, the Complainant was executing the duties of her acting office and quite satisfactorily. This issue was discussed internally from May 2004 when the complainant’s acting appointment started until she gave up a year later and sought the intervention of the Ombudsman in May 2005. We then took up the grievance with the Chief Executive Officer of the local authority concerned and in their response it was admitted that, true the complainant was given a letter authorizing her to act until further notice.

Further that her acting had been stopped after the incumbent of the post resumed duty. The complainant was then sternly cautioned to always follow the right channels when seeking redress. Notably however the response did not at all address her entitlement and or disentitlement to acting allowance for the period May 2004 – May 2005. We convened a meeting with representatives of the District Council and at the meeting the facts which were not in contention were established. We then moved on to consider the implications surrounding the case in particular that;

1. Complainant was written a letter appointing her to act in a higher position,

2. The Assistant Council Secretary for reasons he could not even articulate was not in support of the recommendation and appointment,

3. His lack of support however did not translate into a withdrawal of the authority to act and hence complainant continued executing the duties of a higher office for about a year.

Their attention was drawn to case law pertaining to acting appointments in particular that the responsibility and power to recommend and appoint one in an acting capacity is upon the employer but not the employee. Also that the quantum meruit principle requires that any one who has rendered service to another is entitled to reasonable payment for his/her services. Further that it would not be fair to expect the officer to act for a year and refuse to pay on the basis that understandable as a claim may be it cannot be paid retrospectively.

Thereafter, the Council Secretary called upon the Assistant Council Secretary, whose unreasonable conduct led to the debacle to effect payment. The complainant as well wrote confirming the receipt of her acting allowance and expressing her gratitude for the assistance given.

THE SHHA APPLICATION THAT NEVER WAS

The complaint was against Lobatse Town Council namely that the Council was unreasonably refusing to allocate complainant a SHHA plot applied for in 1990. The complainant made a convincing argument about his name having been entered into the application register only to be told later that the computers were down, that he never made an application and should make a new application.

The Ombudsman took up the matter with the Council. Upon taking up the matter with the Council, the officials gave a totally different yet solid version. According to Council Officials complainant’s name neither appeared in the waiting list nor the nationwide Computerized Land Information System. Over and above that the complainant would have been issued with an acknowledgement letter stating his reference number had he applied. To put icing on the cake, the Council revealed that complainant was a Secondary School student for the years 1989 to 1991, and in his own words his first job was with the same council at the beginning of 1994.

SHHA policy on the other hand is a policy for low income earners and no income earners such as students would certainly be disqualified. Complainant was clearly disqualified from applying for a SHHA plot as he was a student. It was also the contention of the Council that the complainant was in fact trying to take advantage of, if not hijack someone else’s application which person happened to share the same initial and surname with him.

The explanation rendered was accepted as valid and no act of maladministration was found against the Lobatse Town Council.

COMMENT:

This is one case which other than being without merit goes further to expose the complainant for what he is – dishonest and scheming. The Ombudsman can only advise complainants that the Ombudsman acts neither for them nor for Government but rather acts according to the dictates of good administration. For this reason such cases are bound to be dismissed, albeit at a cost to the taxpayer as a lot of resources went into a case which was not supposed to have been brought up in the first place.