Synopsis:
Constitutional issue – wrongfulness – role of private security
industry
Contract for guarding services – breach of contract – express
prohibition – strict liability – liability of security companies
2
Delict – wrongfulness – negligence – vicarious liability of
security companies.
Application for leave to appeal against a judgment and order of the Supreme Court of Appeal. The case concerned the liability of a private security company for the conduct of its employee, who granted robbers, masquerading as police officers, access to a property. The South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg held the private security company liable under the law of contract and delict. On appeal a majority of the Supreme Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision, finding that there was no breach of contract and that the company was not delictually liable.
The Court held the private security company liable in contract for having contravened a strict term of the contract, which was not qualified by a reasonableness standard. The Court also held the company vicariously liable in delict. The company’s employee acted both wrongfully and negligently. The Court granted leave to appeal and upheld the appeal.
Judgment: Van der Westhuizen J (unanimous).