Top Security Systems (Pty) Ltd v Samy's CC t/a Samy's Wholesalers (236/2013) [2019] ZANCHC 62 (13 March 2019)

Top Security Systems (Pty) Ltd v Samy's CC t/a Samy's Wholesalers (236/2013) [2019] ZANCHC 62 (13 March 2019)

The court found that the wardens' failure to scale the fence and conduct a proper investigation, in the context of multiple alarm activations and evidence of movement within the building, constituted negligence. The argument that the palisade fence was inherently dangerous was rejected as an oversimplification, given the wardens' training and the availability of alternative means to scale the fence. The court held that the factual finding of negligence was sound and that there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2019] ZANCHC 62
Parties
Applicant: Top Security Systems (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Samy's CC t/a Samy's Wholesalers; Plaintiff: Samy's CC t/a Samy's Wholesalers; Defendant: Top Security Systems (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: The Minister of Police
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 March 2019
Case Number
236/2013
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Liability for Damages
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
O'Brien AJ
Legal Topics
Negligence, Leave to Appeal, Security Services Liability
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Leave to Appeal 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Top Security Systems (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Samy's CC t/a Samy's Wholesalers

Respondent

Samy's CC t/a Samy's Wholesalers

Plaintiff

Top Security Systems (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

The Minister of Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Liability for Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the wardens' failure to scale the fence constituted negligence.
  2. 2 Whether the failure to call Pillay to the premises after multiple alarm activations was negligent.
  3. 3 Whether there is a reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion on the facts.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the wardens' failure to scale the fence and conduct a proper investigation, in the context of multiple alarm activations and evidence of movement within the building, constituted negligence. The argument that the palisade fence was inherently dangerous was rejected as an oversimplification, given the wardens' training and the availability of alternative means to scale the fence. The court held that the factual finding of negligence was sound and that there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.