![\"Add](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/africa\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/google_preferred_source_badge_dark.9539185f.png\"\/){kind=icon}
<\/a>![\"Follow](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/africa\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/google_news_badge.2b8dbf20.webp.webp\"\/){kind=icon}
<\/a><\/p>\nSIX\u00a0women, including managers and sales representatives from Premjis Jewellers in Gateway, face trial for allegedly stealing over R3.2 million worth of jewellery and falsifying stock records<\/p>\n
Managers Nailash Lala, 61; and Reshmar Raghubar, 39; and sales representatives Samendrie Pillay, 30; Yagna Ramdeen, 29; Kamentha \u00a0Pillai, 28; and Sashmila Rajkumar, 34; appeared in the Durban Magistrate\u2019s Court last week, for the start of the trial<\/p>\n
They have been charged with theft.<\/p>\n
The women, who are from Phoenix, Avoca, Umdloti, Verulam and Umgeni Park, were arrested in September 2023. At the time, they were each released on R20,000 bail.<\/p>\n
All six women have pleaded not guilty to the charges.<\/p>\n
The first witness for the State was Vishnu Pather, the director of Premjis Jewellers.<\/p>\n
He told the court on Friday that a sales representative named Sashika Sewpersad had brought the theft to his attention in June 2023.<\/p>\n
He said at the time, they had found that three Michelle Herbelin watches were missing.\u00a0<\/p>\n
He alleged that the theft had occurred between February 2018 and June 2023.<\/p>\n
He said when Sewpersad raised the alarm on the theft, it triggered an internal investigation which uncovered that high-valued items were not recorded on stock sheets, and that the women had falsified stock sheets and pocketed the proceeds.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe fact that this incident happened, I felt very hurt. It alarmed me. It was only until further investigations were conducted that I came to know what actually transpired.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe allegations are that the accused stole stock, falsified stock sheets, and had planned and orchestrated to rob the store.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe investigation found that the women had been stealing the stock by changing the tags on the high-valued items, and items with high values had low value tags on it. Some items had duplicate codes,\u201d Pather told the court.<\/p>\n
Lala, a store manager, in her affidavit denied all the elements of the offences.<\/p>\n
She said during the period when the alleged theft had taken place, she did not work full days and had been given days off every week.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cDuring the Covid-19 pandemic, I never worked and the shop was assessed by the complainant and people unknown to him. When the lockdown was lifted, I returned to work but there was no stocktake done to confirm what inventory they had in stock, but rather we just continued with business as usual.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen the last stocktake was done, I was not present so I cannot admit or deny if stock was indeed missing,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n
Lala said she also disputed the accessibility of any document, exhibit, or data collected by the State from herself, or any other accused, or obtained from a third party, whether or not the third party was an employee, agent or official of the State, banking institutions, and or any persons from which evidence had been obtained.<\/p>\n
She alleged that her constitutional rights were inadequately explained.<\/p>\n
Lala claimed the\u00a0State had deliberately or with deceitful objectives withheld information from the defence.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis was in a deliberate attempt to surprise the defence at trial stage by discovering documents late, or not at all to infringe our rights to a fair trial, and to be adequately prepared for trial.\u201d<\/p>\n
She claimed that the\u00a0investigative process had been conducted in an unfair manner and was directed to exclude the actual perpetrators, \u201cthereby withholding information and suppressing evidence from either the prosecution and accused persons, and ultimately this court, essentially bringing the criminal justice system into disrepute\u201d.<\/p>\n
She alleged that during the investigation, \u201cmy cellphone communications, my constitutional rights to privacy were infringed without applying the proper procedures to legally limit my constitutional rights\u201d.<\/p>\n
Lala asked that all evidence derived from her cellphone records – archived or current – for the period prior to and after its seizure \u2013 be declared inadmissible.<\/p>\n
Rajkumar also said she denied all the allegations.<\/p>\n
She said she never worked full days and was given days off every week.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cI wish to state that I resigned from the company sometime during the beginning of 2023 due to the abuse that I was subjected to by Vishnu Pather, and prior to me leaving he ensured that there was a stocktake done first, then only was I allowed to resign. So it is clear that the complainant is being malicious in charging for the alleged theft. I never stole anything from the company.<\/p>\n
\u201cI deny that I am to be held liable and accountable for the actions or omissions of any other person or persons which can be casually connected to the alleged theft.<\/p>\n
“I deny that the State has compiled with the pre-trial procedures in obtaining evidence to prove the existence of the jewellery allegedly stolen and the chain of evidence to prove the existence of the jewellery allegedly stolen, and the chain of evidence relating to the all or any exhibits seized or discovered, and out the State to prove these averments,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n
Ramdeen said she only commenced work in February 2020 on a part-time basis.<\/p>\n
She said she used to work about three days a week.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cDuring 2021, I was on maternity leave. When my co-accused were arrested in this matter, I continued to work for the complainant and I was only arrested less than two months later. The only reason I was arrested was because I refused to lie and implicate my co-accused when I was not aware of any theft.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen the last stocktake was done, I was not present so I cannot admit or deny if stock was indeed missing.<\/p>\n
\u201cDuring the investigation, my cellphone communications, my constitutional rights to privacy were infringed without applying the proper procedures to legally limit my constitutional rights.”<\/p>\n
She also asked for her cellphone records to be declared inadmissible.<\/p>\n
The trial will continue later this year.<\/p>\n