Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Simply Africa Trading (Pty) Ltd v Securitas Technology (Pty) Ltd (2021/5691) [2025] ZAGPJHC 61 (13 January 2025)
The High Court held that the security contract did not require 24-hour server-rack monitoring, and that the plaintiff’s delict claim also failed.
Fongoqa v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa and Another (2019/11384) [2022] ZAGPJHC 183 (29 March 2022)
The court found that the plaintiff's evidence regarding the shooting incident was consistent, credible, and unrefuted. None of the defendants' witnesses observed the shooting, and the pleaded versions of commotion or unlawful activity by the plaintiff were unsupported by evidence. The defence of necessity failed as there was no real or imminent threat justifying the use of force, and the shooting occurred at close range in breach of safety protocols. The plaintiff was not contributorily negligent, as he was lawfully present and did not partake in any unlawful activity. Both defendants owed a…
Source excerpt
Top Security Systems (Pty) Ltd v Samy's Wholesalers CC (236/2013) [2022] ZANCHC 2 (21 January 2022)
Full court appeal on whether a security company’s response to repeated alarm activations was reasonable and sufficient. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
G4S Cash Solutions SA (Pty) Ltd v Zandspruit Cash & Carry (Pty) Ltd and Another (A5061/2021; 23675/2012) [2022] ZAGPJHC 7 (6 January 2022)
The court held that the appellant, a private security company, owed a delictual duty to its clients to inform them of the risk of bogus pickups by imposters, given its knowledge of such schemes and the vulnerability of its clients. The contractual relationship established a special relationship, and the duty to inform was not repugnant to the contract but complementary. The appellant's omissions and positive conduct, such as displaying duty rosters and verifying imposters' identities, contributed to the harm suffered. In respect of the first respondent, contributory negligence was found, as i…
Source excerpt
Night Guard CC v Van Den Heever N.O and Others In re: Van Den Heever N.O and Others v Night Guard (2019 / 20886) [2021] ZAGPJHC 657 (24 August 2021)
The court held that the particulars of claim disclose a cause of action in delict against Night Guard. The pleadings sufficiently allege wrongfulness and negligence in the conduct of Night Guard’s security guards, and the necessary requirement for Aquilian liability is present. The court rejected Night Guard’s reliance on Viv’s Tippers, noting that the Constitutional Court in Loureiro overruled the restrictive approach to liability for pure economic loss and affirmed that public policy supports imposing a duty of care on security companies for wrongful and negligent acts. The exceptions raise…
Source excerpt
Top Security Systems (Pty) Ltd v Samy's CC t/a Samy's Wholesalers (236/2013) [2019] ZANCHC 62 (13 March 2019)
The High Court refused leave to appeal, holding there was no reasonable prospect another court would differ on findings that security wardens acted negligently.
Chemalum (Pty) Limited v Servest (Pty) Limited t/a Gremick Security (14348/2009) [2016] ZAKZDHC 50 (9 November 2016)
High Court breach-of-contract claim over security services and theft from a storeroom, with liability found against the defendant but quantum reserved.
Van As v ADT Security (Pty) Ltd (34447/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 288 (5 May 2015)
The High Court held a security company liable for breach of an oral repair agreement after alarm-system faults allegedly allowed robbers to enter the home.
Loureiro and Others v Imvula Quality Protection (Pty) Ltd (CCT 40/13) [2014] ZACC 4; 2014 (5) BCLR 511 (CC); 2014 (3) SA 394 (CC) (20 March 2014)
The Constitutional Court held that the oral contract between Mr Loureiro and Imvula Quality Protection (Pty) Ltd was amended by an express prohibition against opening the pedestrian gate without prior authorisation, and this term imposed strict liability. The respondent's employee breached this term by allowing access to imposters, regardless of negligence. In delict, the Court found the conduct wrongful, as public policy and constitutional rights require security companies to prevent unauthorised access and protect clients. The employee's actions were negligent, as a reasonable security guar…
Source excerpt
Imvula Quality Protection (Pty) Ltd v Loureiro and Others (130/12) [2013] ZASCA 12; 2013 (3) SA 407 (SCA); [2013] 2 All SA 659 (SCA) (15 March 2013)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the insurance cession was limited, the security contract was with the first respondent, and the guard was not negligent.
Explore more
