Kogana v SBV Services (Pty) Ltd (384/11) [2012] ZASCA 25 (23 March 2012)

Kogana v SBV Services (Pty) Ltd (384/11) [2012] ZASCA 25 (23 March 2012)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving causation. The evidence did not establish that the loss would probably not have occurred had the appellant performed his duties as required. The expert opinion relied upon by the respondent was not adequately substantiated and did not account for the robbers' capacity to overcome resistance. The court found that any conclusion regarding what might have happened if the crew had acted differently would be speculative. Accordingly, the claim against the appellant could not succeed, and the appeal was upheld.

Citation
[2012] ZASCA 25
Parties
Appellant: Glenville Mervin Kogana; Respondent: SBV Services (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 March 2012
Case Number
384/11
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of the court below set aside and substituted with an order absolving the first defendant from the instance with costs.
Judges
NAVSA, NUGENT, CACHALIA, TSHIQI, PETSE
Legal Topics
Causation in Delict, Employee Duties, Breach of Contract, Security Services Liability
Delict Commercial and Corporate Causation in Delict Employee Duties Breach of Contract Security Services Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glenville Mervin Kogana

Appellant

SBV Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a causal link was established between the alleged breach of duty by the appellant and the loss suffered by the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that the loss would not have occurred had the appellant properly performed his duties.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent discharged the onus of proof regarding causation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving causation. The evidence did not establish that the loss would probably not have occurred had the appellant performed his duties as required. The expert opinion relied upon by the respondent was not adequately substantiated and did not account for the robbers' capacity to overcome resistance. The court found that any conclusion regarding what might have happened if the crew had acted differently would be speculative. Accordingly, the claim against the appellant could not succeed, and the appeal was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of the court below set aside and substituted with an order absolving the first defendant from the instance with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the court below is set aside.