Nakani said the incident had violated the rights of the victim.
“One can imagine [having to go] where there were faeces of different people, only to retrieve something of material value to the convicted person, something that could be replaced.
“Was the unavailability of that phone a matter of life or death? We do not know. He did not tell the court.”
Nakani said Mgandela also had a moral obligation to protect and care for the pupil as a father figure.
“Would he apply the same principle to his own child?”
The boy was paid R50 by Mgandela.
Nakani said the sentence would serve as a reminder to Mgandela never to commit such an act again.
The boy’s grandmother previously said she did not want Mgandela to be jailed or lose his job.
But Majola said the sentence was suitable only for someone who had “scolded a child. We welcome the sentence, but it is not 100% satisfying because the fine does not repair the damage caused to the child”.
“We are sitting with a child who needs reconstruction of self-esteem.
“Anyone can pay that money. This case will become a precedent and will be used in courts in future as a referral.
“It does not help when someone who committed such a serious crime is fined.”