Irregular Expenditure
Irregular Expenditure — No-Loss Determinations
Share of irregular expenditure where investigation found value was received and no loss occurred.
Why no-loss determinations are scrutinised
A large share of irregular expenditure involves a procedural breach where the goods or services were nonetheless received at fair value, meaning no financial loss occurred. The section 32 investigation can find no loss, which then supports condonation rather than recovery, but that finding must be evidenced or it becomes a route to wave transgressions through. AuditPro Core records the basis for each no-loss determination and links it to value-received evidence, so oversight bodies can distinguish a defensible conclusion from a rubber stamp.
The Numbers
AuditPro Core renders this view from your tenant's live, tamper-evident records. The figures below are illustrative sample data.
Assessed no-loss
R22 bn
value received
Confirmed loss
R7.8 bn
Determination outstanding
R39 bn
Determinations this year
1 870
Determination outcome (R bn)
Outcome by sphere
| Sphere | No loss (R bn) | Loss (R bn) |
|---|---|---|
| Local government | 11.2 | 4.1 |
| Provincial | 7.4 | 2.6 |
| National & SOEs | 3.4 | 1.1 |
Figures shown are illustrative sample data for demonstration. AuditPro Core renders these views from your own tenant's live, tamper-evident records.
Procedural breach without loss
Much irregular expenditure is non-compliance with SCM process where the underlying transaction still delivered value for money. The transgression remains real and must be disclosed even though no money was lost.
Evidencing value received
A no-loss finding rests on evidence that goods or services were delivered at a fair, market-related price. Without that evidence the determination is an assertion, and the auditor will treat the loss question as unresolved.
No loss is not condonation
Finding no loss removes the recovery obligation but does not erase the irregular expenditure; condonation by the empowered authority is still required to clear the balance. The two steps are often wrongly collapsed into one.
How AuditPro Core Bridges the Gap
- Determination basis: each no-loss finding records the evidence of value received and the official who made the call.
- Value-for-money linkage: the system links the determination to price benchmarks or delivery proof so the conclusion is defensible.
- Two-step traceability: no-loss findings are tracked separately from the subsequent condonation, preventing the steps from being conflated.
- Exception flagging: no-loss determinations lacking supporting evidence are flagged for review before they clear the register.
Key Takeaways
- No-loss does not mean no transgression; the irregular expenditure still requires disclosure and condonation.
- Every no-loss finding needs documented evidence that fair value was received.
- Keep the loss determination and the condonation decision as distinct, evidenced steps.
- Unsupported no-loss findings are a soft spot auditors probe for control weakness.
See This on Your Own Data
AuditPro Core renders this dashboard from your tenant's live, tamper-evident records — every figure traceable to source.