THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT

Reportable
Case No:  130/12

In the matter between:

IMVULA QUALITY PROTECTION (PTY) LTD

Appellant

and

LICINIO LOUREIRO

First Respondent
VANESSA LOUREIRO

SecondRespondent
LUCA-FILIP LOUREIRO

ThirdRespondent
JEAN-ENRIQUE LOUREIRO

Fourth Respondent

Neutral citation: Imvula Quality Protection (Pty) Ltd v Licinio Loureiro &

others (130/12) [2012] ZASCA 12 (15 March 2013)

Coram:

Mthiyane DP, Cloete, Mhlantla and Bosielo JJA and Mbha
AJA

Heard:

21 Nov 2012

Delivered:
15 March 2013

Summary: Contract ─ Delict ─ contract concluded by appellant and first
respondent for guarding services for first respondent’s property and family ─
invalidity of limited cession ─ conduct of the guard not negligent ─
respondents failed to prove breach of contractual terms and legal duty owed
to them.

______________________________________________________________
ORDER
________________________________________________________________________________

On appeal from: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg (Satchwell J
sitting as court of first instance):

The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
The order of the court below is set aside and replaced with the following:

‘The plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed with costs.’

JUDGMENT

MHLANTLA JA (Mthiyane DP, Bosielo JA and Mbha AJA concurring):

Introduction
[1]   This is an appeal from a judgment of the South Gauteng High Court,
Johannesburg (Satchwell J) in which Imvula Quality Protection (Pty) Ltd
(the appellant) was found liable to Mr Licinio Loureiro (the first respondent)
in contract, and to Mrs Vanessa Loureiro and their two minor sons (the
second to fourth respondents respectively) in delict for the loss they allegedly
suffered in a robbery which occurred at their home on 22 January 2009. It is
that incident which gave rise to the above claims.

Background
[2] The incident can be best understood by reference to the following
background facts. On 25 November 2008, the first respondent and his family
moved into their house at 50 Jellicoe Avenue, Melrose, Johannesburg. He
arranged with Mr Barbosa of Sky Leah Sales to install a comprehensive
security system at the house. This involved electric fencing, perimeter

protection, beams, multiple alarm systems, guard house, intercom and closed
circuit television. There was a safe room concealed by large mirrors inside
the house. The first respondent, his nephew (Ricardo Loureiro) and Ricardo’s
father were members of Combined Ceilings and Partitions CC (CC&P). The
first respondent requested Ricardo to arrange a 24-hour service of armed
guards to be placed at his house. The appellant, a private security firm, was
employed for this purpose. The guards were placed at the entrance of the
respondents’ home with effect from 2 December 2008.

[3] The first respondent became concerned about the conduct of the
guards who allowed access to visitors without his prior authorisation. On 10
December 2008 he instructed Barbosa to partially disable the intercom so
that the guards would not be able to open and close the main driveway gate.
This arrangement, however, affected the movement of the guards during their
change of shifts. To alleviate this problem, the first respondent provided the
guards with a key to open the pedestrian gate during the shift change only.
He prohibited them from using the key to open the gate to allow access to
anyone without his prior authorisation.

[4] On 22 January 2009, the first and second respondents left their home
at about 19h45 to attend a school function. They left their children in the care
of the domestic workers and the houseman Francis. Mr July Mahlangu
(Mahlangu), a grade A security guard and instructor, was on duty. He was at
the guard house when he saw a white BMW vehicle flashing a police blue
light approaching. It drove past and stopped partially on the driveway near
the guard house. A passenger alighted from the front seat. He was wearing
dark blue clothing, a reflective vest marked “Police” and a police cap. The
man walked towards the thick bullet-proof glass of the guard house and
produced a card. He showed Mahlangu a police identity card. Mahlangu did

not have sufficient opportunity to inspect the card and thus could not see the
photo thereon in order to compare it to the man before him. Mahlangu was
adamant that the card was a valid police identity card as it had a police
emblem on it. After seeing the card, he went to the intercom and tried to
speak to the policeman. There was no response from the latter. He could not
hear anything through the intercom and could not hear the sound of the car.
He realised that the intercom was not working. He looked and realised that
the policeman was no longer waiting in front of the window. He decided to
open the gate and go outside in order to establish what the police officer
wanted as he was obliged to co-operate with the police and members of other
security services.

[5] He took the key to the pedestrian gate and opened the gate. He found
the policeman standing about two metres from him. Mahlangu was startled
when this ‘policeman’ immediately produced a firearm and pointed it at his
head.  Other armed intruders joined this ‘policeman’.  It was then that
Mahlangu realised that he had been duped by a person posing as a police
officer. The intruders forced him into the premises. They ordered him to lead
them to the main house where they accosted the occupants and waited for the
owners to return.

[6] The first and second respondents returned at approximately 21h00 and
were accosted by the intruders as they entered the garage. The intruders
robbed them and stole their belongings, mostly jewellery which had been
stored in the safe room.  The total value of the items stolen was in excess of
R11 million. After the robbery, the first respondent, who had concluded an
“Agreement of Loss” with Insurance Zone Administration Services (IZAS),
submitted an insurance claim for the first loss in terms of his insurance
policy. This agreement contained a clause relating to a cession of the claim. I

shall return to the details of the agreement in due course. The first respondent
was paid an amount of R1 556 442.43.

[7] The respondents subsequently instituted an action against the
appellant, based both in contract and delict, for damages for the loss they had
suffered.1 The appellant raised a special plea that the first respondent had no
locus standi as he had ceded all of his rights and remedies arising from the
incident to IZAS. In its plea, the appellant pleaded that the contract for the
guarding services had been concluded with CC&P and not with the first
respondent. Consequently, the appellant alleged, the first respondent had no
claim against it. Regarding the delictual claim, the appellant pleaded that the
second to fourth respondents had failed to prove any blameworthy conduct
on the part of the appellant and/or the guard.

[8] The matter came before Satchwell J. The learned judge granted an
order separating the issues and proceeded to determine the merits. Regarding
the special plea, the judge held that the cession related to the loss set out in
the document and was limited to the amount paid to the first respondent. She
declared the cession between the first respondent and IZAS invalid as it

1 In their particulars of claim they inter alia alleged:
‘5. On or about 1 December 2008 and at Cyrildene, the first plaintiff, represented by RICARDO
LOUREIRO, and the defendant, represented by a duly authorised representative, entered into an oral
agreement (“the guarding service agreement”) which was amended orally on 10 December 2008 by the
addition of the terms set out in paragraph 6.8 below when the first plaintiff  represented himself and the
defendant was represented by a duly authorised representative.
6. The express, alternatively, implied, alternatively tacit terms of the guarding services agreement included the
following terms, further alternatively, the guarding service agreement properly constructed and interpreted
provided inter alia that:
6.1 …
6.2 …
6.3 …
6.4 …
6.5 The defendant would take all reasonable steps to:
6.5.1 prevent persons gaining unauthorised access and/or entry to the plaintiffs’ premises; and
6.5.2 protect the persons and property of the plaintiffs and/or the first plaintiff  and his family and/or any other
persons lawfully present at the plaintiffs’ premises;
6.6 …
6.7 …
6.8 the defendant was not entitled to permit any person to gain access to the plaintiff’s residence other than the
plaintiffs and their two minor sons, unless the defendant had obtained prior authorisation from the first plaintiff
alternatively the second plaintiff to allow such persons access to the plaintiffs’ residence.’

amounted to a splitting of one cause of action between two creditors. In so far
as the question relating to the contract was concerned, the judge held that the
first respondent had concluded a contract for armed guards with the
appellant. On the issue of the vehicle and the passenger, she held that
Mahlangu had been ‘presented with an apparent SAPS [South African Police
Services] vehicle and an apparent member of the SAPS who came to the
guard house and that he could not be criticised for assuming that this was a
police patrol and a policeman’. She however found that Mahlangu was
negligent as he had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the anticipated
harm from happening and that his conduct in opening the pedestrian gate
caused the intruders to enter the premises and rob the family. The judge then
concluded that the appellant was liable for the loss and/or damages suffered
by the respondents.

Issues on appeal
[9] This appeal, with leave of the court a quo, is against that ruling and
four issues arise for consideration by this court. The first is whether on a
proper interpretation of the written ‘agreement of loss’, the first respondent
had ceded his right to claim from the appellant to IZAS. The second is
whether the first respondent was the party that concluded the agreement for
guarding services with the appellant. The third is whether the appellant
and/or its employee breached the terms of the contract. And the fourth is
whether the conduct of the guard in opening the pedestrian gate constituted
negligence and is causally linked to the damages sustained by the
respondents.

[10] I shall consider the issues in turn.

The cession

[11]    It is common cause that IZAS and the first respondent concluded an
“Agreement of Loss” which contained a cession, the details of which are as
follows:
‘It is hereby mutually agreed between INSURANCE ZONE ADMINISTRATION
SERVICES and L. LOUREIRO (policy IZIP4150) without admission of, or denial of any
liability whatsoever, that the loss which occurred on 22 January 2009, as a result of
THEFT, in respect of claim number IZP4150/1
In respect of     Jewellery

R1 500 000.00
General All Risks

R   300 000.00
Household Contents
R   256 672.00
LESS EXCESS

R          250.00
LESS INTERIM PAYMENT            R    500 000.00
R 1 556 422.43
ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED AND FIFTY SIX THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED
AND TWENTY TWO RAND AND FORTY THREE CENTS

A
Re-imbursement of above goods by Insurance Zone Administration Services is
considered full and final settlement of all and any claims whatsoever which the insured as
owner has or may have against Insurance Zone. I/We hereby authorize Insurance Zone
irrevocably and in rem suam in my/our name to dispose of the salvage of the property and
to retain any proceeds for its sole and absolute benefit.
B
I/We warrant and declare that the property is fully paid for and is not subject to
any Hire Purchase, Lease, Rental or any other agreement affecting or limiting any rights
of ownership and/or possession of the property.
C
Should the property or any part thereof be located after replacement of the above
items, I/ we undertake to render all reasonable assistance in the identification and physical
recovery of the property if called upon to do so by Insurance Zone provided all reasonable
expenses in rendering such assistance shall be reimbursed by Insurance Zone. Failure to
comply with this condition will render me/us liable to repay upon demand all amounts
paid pursuant to this agreement.
D
I/We declare that there is no other insurance in force covering the property.
E
I/We hereby cede, assign and transfer to and in favour of Insurance Zone all rights
which I/we might have against any other party arising from the loss referred to above.’
(My emphasis.)

[12] Counsel for the appellant submitted that on a proper interpretation of
the agreement of loss, the cession had to be taken to include the entire loss
allegedly sustained by the first respondent on 22 January 2009 and
consequently that the first respondent had ceded away his rights and had no
locus standi. I do not agree. In its plain and ordinary meaning the word ‘loss’
in the agreement expresses a cession of the claim in relation to a limited loss
and not the full loss. The amount paid out to the first respondent was only in
respect of the insured items in the categories listed. The cover was limited
and did not include all the items lost in the armed robbery. It is accordingly
evident that the cession was limited to the loss set out and that it was subject
to four qualifiers, namely:
(a) The loss that occurred on 22 January 2009;
(b) as a result of theft;
(c) in respect of claim no. IZIP4150/1; and
(d) in respect of the items listed and up to the amount set out in the
document.
In the circumstances the submission that the cession was in relation to the
entire loss falls to be rejected.

[13] In Scottish Union & National Insurance Co Ltd v Native Recruiting
Corporation Ltd,2 a case involving the construction of an insurance policy,
Wessels CJ said:
‘We must gather the intention of the parties from the language of the contract itself, and if
that language is clear, we must give effect to what the parties themselves have said; and
we must presume that they knew the meaning of the words they used. It has been
repeatedly decided in our Courts that in construing every kind of written contract the
Court must give effect to the grammatical and ordinary meaning of the words used
therein. In ascertaining this meaning, we must give to the words used by the parties their
plain, ordinary and popular meaning, unless it appears clearly from the context that both
the parties intended them to bear a different meaning.’

2 Scottish Union & National Insurance Co Ltd v Native Recruiting Corporation Ltd 1934 AD 458 at 465.

[14]   In the result, the first respondent is not precluded from claiming the
difference between the total value of the alleged loss and what was paid out
by IZAS. Similarly, IZAS would have no right to claim the full R11 million
of the alleged loss. In this regard, Mr Allen Johnston, a managing director of
IZAS and the first respondent’s insurance broker testified that IZAS only
sought to recover the amount it had paid out.  The cession accordingly
related to the limited indemnity. It follows that the conclusion of the court
below cannot be faulted. The special plea was correctly dismissed. The
appeal on this ground fails.

The identity of the contracting parties
[15] I turn now to consider the next issue, which is the identity of the
contracting parties. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the first
respondent had failed to prove that he was a party to the contract and that this
contract had been concluded between the appellant and CC&P. On the
evidence this argument is without merit. The first respondent and Ricardo
testified about the circumstances relating to the conclusion of the contract.
The first respondent had requested Ricardo to arrange the guard service since
the latter already knew the relevant persons in the industry. Ricardo was
adamant that he acted in his capacity as a family member and not as a
member of CC&P. The services order form was issued in the name of the
first respondent and the invoices were addressed to ‘Rick’, (a clear reference
to Ricardo) and not CC&P. These invoices referred to the first respondent.
The appellant did not adduce any evidence to contradict Ricardo’s evidence.
Furthermore, when the contract was amended at some point it was the first
respondent and not CC&P who did so, clearly indicating that the first
respondent was accepted as a party to the contract. It is therefore clear that
the parties to the contract were the appellant and the first respondent. Any

argument to the contrary is without merit. Accordingly, the first respondent’s
version relating to the conclusion of the contract must be accepted.

Breach of contract
[16]   I turn now to consider whether the first respondent has established the
breach of the contractual terms relied upon. Counsel for the respondents
submitted that the appellant breached the contract, that is the guarding
service agreement, in that its employee had opened the pedestrian gate to the
premises notwithstanding express instructions given by the first respondent
to Mr Green, employed by the appellant as a supervisor of the security
guards, not to do so. In my view, the evidence of what happened at the gate is
crucial to the determination of the alleged breach and the alleged liability in
delict. This is because this court is required to consider the reasonableness of
the conduct of the security guard in both legs of the respondents’ claims.
That, too, is the approach adopted by the first respondent in the heads of
argument and in the pleadings. Counsel for the first respondent averred in
paragraph 18 of the heads that:
‘[The] appellant was contractually obliged to take all reasonable steps to prevent
unauthorised access and/or entry to the premises and to protect the persons and property
of the respondents at the Loureiro home.’(My underlining.)

[17]    In response to questions from the bench during argument counsel
sought to distance himself from this proposition. In my view this was a futile
attempt to wriggle out of a conundrum in which the first respondent found
himself because the position adopted in the heads is precisely how the first
respondent’s case was pleaded. In paragraphs 6.1 and 6.7 of the particulars of
claim it is alleged that the agreement, properly construed, was that the
appellant ‘would provide guarding services’ at the first respondent’s
residence and ‘would take reasonable steps to ensure that no persons gained
unlawful access to the plaintiff’s [the first respondent’s] premises’. During

argument counsel for the first respondent sought to place sole reliance on
paragraph 6.8 of the particulars of claim for the proposition that the appellant
‘was not entitled to permit any person to gain access to the residence’
without the prior authorisation of the first respondent, as if this stood alone
(emphasis added). But this argument ignores paragraph 6.7 of the particulars
of claim in which it is alleged that the appellant (and therefore the security
guard) was required to take reasonable steps in deciding whether or not to
permit access to the premises. The first respondent’s part of the claim based
on negligence also required of the security guard to conduct himself as the
bonus paterfamilias (reasonable person) would do in the circumstances.

[18]   The construction of the contract to mean that the guard was not
permitted to allow any person into the premises is not sustainable. In so far as
this contractual term is concerned, one must read it in such a way as to
provide for a tacit term that excludes the police from the group of people
who are not allowed access to the premises, otherwise the prohibition will for
instance be in contravention of the provisions of section 25(3)3 of the
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. (See Alfred McAlpine & Son (Pty) Ltd v
Transvaal Provincial Administration 1974 (3) SA 506 (A) at 531A-532A.)

[19]   It is accordingly critical to consider the actions of the security guard on
the night of the incident and establish whether he acted reasonably. But
before doing so, it is apposite at this stage to comment on the remarks made
by the judge and the doctrine of judicial notice she invoked.

Mahlangu’s qualifications

3 Section 25(3) reads:
‘(3) A police official may without warrant act under subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of subsection (1) if he on
reasonable grounds believes−
(a) that a warrant will be issued to him under paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) if he applies for such
warrant; and
(b) that the delay in obtaining such warrant would defeat the object thereof.’

[20]    Regarding Mahlangu’s qualifications, the judge remarked as follows:
‘[T]he defendant company holds itself out as providing specialist services of a security
nature and, in this particular instance, guarding of residential premises. The invoice is in
respect of only a “Grade D” armed guard but nonetheless this is an employee who could
be expected to have been trained (not only as regards specific duties) in the nature of
criminal trends in the relevant area and the appropriate security response thereto.’

[21]   This criticism is totally unjustified. The evidence showed that
Mahlangu was qualified as a Grade A security guard and was in addition a
training instructor. His qualifications were not challenged during the trial. He
was accordingly properly trained in accordance with the security industry
standards. According to his testimony he knew that he had to ‘make sure that
the property and the people [were] safe’. Mahlangu explained further that he
had to apply common sense. It was not necessary for the appellant to rebut
any evidence of what the training of a Grade A or D guard entailed and
whether that was adequate. No evidence was adduced of the standard of
training applied in the security industry to establish what could reasonably be
expected or that Mahlangu’s qualifications were inadequate.

Application of the doctrine of judicial notice
[22]   The judge accorded undue weight to the existence of the notorious
members of the ‘blue light gang’ which had received media publicity. These
allegations were never pleaded nor proved in court. It was never suggested to
Mahlangu that there was a blue light gang operating in the area and that their
nefarious activities were of such public knowledge that Mahlangu should
have been aware of them. No statistics were provided to show the number of
offences committed in the area by such persons. There was no scope for the
judge to take judicial notice of the scourge of criminals in police uniforms. In
my view the judge incorrectly invoked the doctrine and accordingly erred in
this regard.

[23]    It follows that the first respondent has failed to establish that the
appellant breached the contract.

Negligence
[24]    I turn now to that part of the first respondent’s claim based on
negligence on the part of the appellant. This necessarily involves a
consideration of Mahlangu’s actions on the night in question. The classic test
for negligence was articulated by Holmes JA in Kruger v Coetzee4 as
follows:
‘For the purposes of liability culpa arises if−
(a) a diligens paterfamilias in the position of the defendant−
(i)
would foresee the reasonable possibility of  his conduct injuring another in
his person or property and causing him patrimonial loss; and
(ii)
would take reasonable steps to guard against such occurrence; and
(b)  the defendant failed to take such steps.
... Whether a diligens paterfamilias in the position of the person concerned would take
any guarding steps at all and, if so, what steps would be reasonable, must always
depend upon the particular circumstances of each case. No hard and fast basis can be
laid down.’

[25]   Van den Heever JA elaborated this in Herschel v Mrupe5 where he
said:
‘The concept of the bonus paterfamilias is not that of a timorous faint-heart always in
trepidation lest he or others suffer some injury; on the contrary, he ventures out into the
world, engages in affairs and takes reasonable chances. He takes reasonable precautions to
protect his person and property and expects others to do likewise.’

[26]  On the element of foreseeability, Scott JA expressed himself as
follows in Sea Harvest Corporation (Pty) Ltd & another v Duncan Dock
Cold Storage (Pty) Ltd & another:6

4 Kruger v Coetzee 1966 (2) SA 428 (A) at 430E-G.
5 Herschel v Mrupe 1954 (3) SA 464 (A) at 490E-F.

‘It is probably so that there can be no universally applicable formula which will prove to
be
appropriate in every case. ... Notwithstanding the wide nature of the inquiry postulated in
para (a)(i) of Holmes JA’s formula – and which has earned the tag of the absolute or
abstract theory of negligence – this Court has both prior and subsequent to the decision in
Kruger v Coetzee acknowledged the need for various limitations to the broadness of the
inquiry where the circumstances have so demanded. For example, it has been recognised
that, while the precise or exact manner in which the harm occurs need not be foreseeable,
the general manner of its occurrence must indeed be reasonably foreseeable.’

[27]   Turning to the facts of this case, this court is required to determine
whether a reasonable person in Mahlangu’s position would have foreseen the
reasonable possibility that the person or persons who approached him at the
gate were not genuine policemen, and having so realised failed to prevent
them from gaining access to the premises. The judge alluded to what
Mahlangu should have done before deciding to open the pedestrian gate. She
said:
‘He did not try to use the intercom to contact the occupants of the house which could have
confirmed whether or not the intercom worked. … He made no attempt to establish if
these were members of the SAPS, [whether they were] at the correct address and what
they wanted. …  He did not speak through the peephole or through the gate.’

[28]    This is an unjustified criticism especially given the finding by the
judge that Mahlangu could not be faulted for assuming that the person who
alighted from the vehicle was a policeman. The evidence was that the
persons concerned came in a vehicle flashing a blue light which itself is
indicative of an emergency and the need to act urgently. There was some
suggestion that there was a peephole in the vicinity of the guard house. But
that is a neutral fact as even the second respondent did not think that one
could talk through the peephole. So the guard had to step out of the guard

6 Sea Harvest Corporation (Pty) Ltd & another v Duncan Dock Cold Storage (Pty) Ltd & another 2000 (1) SA
827 (SCA) para 22.

house and approach the person to find out the purpose of his visit. In a case
such as this there is a temptation to be wise after the fact. It must be borne in
mind that the court cannot approach the case as an arm-chair critic with the
benefit of hindsight. Ex post facto knowledge is irrelevant. In S v Bochris
Investments (Pty) Ltd & another,7 Nicholas AJA said:
‘In considering this question, one must guard against what Williamson JA called “the
insidious subconscious influence of ex post facto knowledge” (in S v Mini 1963 (3) SA
188 (A) at 196E-F). Negligence is not established by showing merely that the occurrence
happened (unless the case is one where res ipsa loquitur), or by showing after it happened
how it could have been prevented. The diligens paterfamilias does not have “prophetic
foresight”. …  In Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd  v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The
Wagon Mound) 1961AC 388 (PC) ([1961] 1 All ER 404) Viscount Simonds said at 424
(AC) and at 414G-H (in All ER):

“After the event, even a fool is wise. But it is not the hindsight of a fool; it is the
foresight of the reasonable man which alone can determine responsibility.”’

[29]   Mahlangu was a candid and honest witness. No adverse findings were
made against him. He stated that he intended to open the gate to find out
what the policeman wanted, not to allow access to anyone. He thought he
could help the police officer and believed that the police officer wanted
something. He did not invite the intruders into the premises, they forced their
way in after pointing a firearm at him. There was nothing suspicious about
the person that could and should have put Mahlangu on his guard. Mahlangu
was not unreasonable in believing that the individual, who was for all intents
and purposes dressed like a genuine police officer, was a policeman. It
follows that he was not negligent in opening the gate to establish what the
police officer wanted. In my view Mahlangu was also a victim as he was
duped by what appeared to him to be a police officer. That it later transpired
that he was a member of a gang of robbers is irrelevant. There was no time to
push the panic button or draw a firearm because he did not anticipate any

7 S.v Bochris Investments (Pty) Ltd & another 1988 (1) SA 861 (A) at 866J-867B.

crisis when he went to open the pedestrian gate. There was equally no reason
to call his superior, Mr Green. A bonus paterfamilias would not have
foreseen that he was opening the gate to robbers and that he would be
overpowered.

[30]    I agree with the court below that Mahlangu cannot be criticised for
assuming that he was dealing with a policeman engaged in official patrol.
However, I do not agree with its subsequent finding that Mahlangu was
negligent in opening the gate. That finding is not supported by the evidence.
In my view, no reasonable person in Mahlangu’s position could have
believed that he was not dealing with a genuine policeman. Mahlangu was
not negligent in being duped by the robbers. It follows therefore that no
blameworthy conduct on the part of the guard has been proved. In the result,
the first respondent has failed to prove the alleged breach of the contractual
term; the express prohibition outlined in paragraph 6.8 of the particulars of
claim could not have been intended to apply to police officers performing
official duties.

The second to fourth respondents’ claims
[31]   The second to fourth respondents rely on the conduct of the guard and
the vicarious liability of the employer for their delictual claims. Regarding
the element of unlawfulness, the respondents can only succeed if they can
prove that by opening the gate Mahlangu acted unlawfully and breached the
legal duty he owed to them. The circumstances under which he opened the
gate must be assessed in order to establish whether Mahlangu’s conduct was
unlawful or not. The same considerations relating to negligence as discussed
earlier apply to the determination of these claims.

[32]    Harms JA articulated the principle of the law of delict in Telematrix
(Pty) Ltd t/a Matrix Vehicle Tracking v Advertising Standards Authority SA8
as follows:
‘The first principle of the law of delict, which is so easily forgotten and hardly appears in
any local text on the subject, is, as the Dutch author Asser  points out, that everyone has to
bear  the loss he or she suffers. The Afrikaans aphorism is that ‘skade rus waar dit val’.
Aquilian liability provides for an exception to the rule and, in order to be liable for the
loss of someone else, the act or omission of the defendant must have been wrongful and
negligent and have caused the loss. But the fact that an act is negligent does not make it
wrongful although foreseeability of damage may be a factor in establishing whether or not
a particular act was wrongful….
‘[C]onduct is wrongful if public policy considerations demand that in the circumstances
the plaintiff has to be compensated for the loss caused by the negligent act or omission of
the defendant. It is then that it can be said that the legal convictions of society regard the
conduct as wrongful….’

[33]    Consideration has to be given to the legal convictions or the boni
mores of the community.9 It must also be borne in mind that private industry
security officers have a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the
Code of Conduct for Security Service Providers, 2003. The Code includes an
obligation to co-operate with the members of State security services. Clauses
7(1) to (3) thereof read:
General Obligations towards the Security Services and organs of State:
‘(1) A security service provider must, within his or her ability, render all reasonable
assistance and co-operation to the members and employees of the Security Services to
enable them to perform any function which they may lawfully perform.
(2) A security service provider may not interfere with, resist, obstruct, hinder or delay a
member or an employee of a Security Service or an organ of State in the performance of a
function which such person may lawfully perform.

8 Telematrix (Pty) Ltd t/a Matrix Vehicle Tracking v Advertising Standards Authority SA 2006 (1) SA 461
(SCA) paras 12-13.
9 Minister of Safety and Security v Van Duivenboden 2002 (6) SA 431 (SCA) para 17.

(3) A security service provider must, without undue delay, furnish all the information and
documentation to a member or employee of a Security Service or an organ of State which
such member or employee may lawfully require.’

[34] Having regard to the facts of this matter, Mahlangu’s conduct finds
resonance in clause 7 of the Code. He could not lawfully resist opening the
gate to a policeman’s demand for entry to the premises if he had legitimate
grounds for doing so. It was never suggested to Mahlangu that he should
have ignored the policeman. He, at all times, acted in good faith under the
impression that he was assisting the police. He tried to communicate with the
policeman through the intercom. He could not speak through the armoured
gate. In this regard, the second respondent did not think that one could talk
through the gate. This aspect was only established during the inspection in
loco that persons could hear each other when the gate was closed. It follows
that Mahlangu cannot be held to have acted unlawfully when he opened the
gate to speak to the policeman. The second to fourth respondents have
therefore failed to prove a breach of the legal duty owed to them.
Accordingly the appellant is not vicariously liable for the loss and/or
damages they suffered as a result of the armed robbery. The appeal must
therefore succeed.

[35]   In the result, I make the following order:
The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
The order of the court below is set aside and replaced with the
following:

‘The plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed with costs.’

_____________________
N Z MHLANTLA

JUDGE OF APPEAL

CLOETE JA:

[36] I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of my learned
colleague Mhlantla JA. I agree with the conclusion reached on the identity of
the contracting parties. I also agree with the conclusion (in para 13) that the
cession by the first respondent to the insurance company was limited and did
not extend to all the items stolen in the robbery. The consequence is that  the
cession constituted an attempt to split one cause of action between two
creditors (the first respondent and the insurance company) and since there
was no question of consent by the debtor (the appellant), the cession was
invalid for the reasons given in Van der Merwe v Nedcor Bank Bpk 2003 (1)
SA 169 (SCA) para 6. But in my view the appeal should nevertheless be
dismissed.

[37] In the particulars of claim, the respondents alleged:
‘5.
On or about 1 December 2008 and at Cyrildene, the first plaintiff, represented by
RICARDO LOIREIRO, and the defendant, represented by a duly authorised
representative, entered into an oral agreement (“the guarding service agreement”) which
was amended orally on 10 December 2008 by the addition of the terms set out in
paragraph 6.8 below when the first plaintiff represented himself and the defendant was
represented by a duly authorised representative.
6.
The express, alternatively, implied, alternatively tacit terms of the guarding
services agreement included the following terms, further alternatively, the guarding
service agreement properly constructed and interpreted provided inter alia that:
. . .
6.5
The defendant would take all reasonable steps to:
. . .
6.5.2 protect the persons and property of the plaintiffs and/or the first plaintiff and his
family . . .
. . .
6.8
the defendant was not entitled to permit any person to gain access to the plaintiffs’
residence other than the plaintiffs and their two minor sons, unless the defendant had

obtained prior authorisation from the first plaintiff alternatively the second plaintiff to
allow such persons access to the plaintiffs’ residence.’

[38] This court has confirmed the finding of the high court that the
appellant contracted with the first respondent. The first respondent therefore
has an action in contract against the appellant for patrimonial loss suffered by
himself, his wife and their children in consequence of a breach of the
contract ─ if it was breached.

[39] The evidence of the first respondent was that on 7 December 2008 he
was hosting a family get-together at his home. His brother arrived at the front
door. That upset him because he did not want the security guard to admit
anyone. The first respondent then caused the button in the guardroom that
enabled the guard to open the main gate, to be disconnected. This caused a
problem because the appellant’s security staff could not gain access to the
premises. The problem was explained to the first respondent by Mr Green,
the area manager of the appellant, who requested a key to the smaller
(pedestrian) gate next to the main gate. The first respondent’s response, in his
own words, was:
‘I said look, I have got a problem giving you the key because I do not want nobody in my
property, I do not want you guys to open the door for nobody because we have had an
incident of you guys opening the doors for people and you know, I am being surprised at
the door by family members that you opened the door for and it is an issue for me. I said
to him I will give you the key, the shift key under one condition, under one condition, it is
only for shift change and nothing else and Mr Green can verify that I did say that. I said
this key is only for shift change and nothing else.’
After the robbery, Green came to see the first respondent again and according
to the first respondent, he said to Green:
‘What was my instructions on 8 December or 10 December saying to you that you do not
open the door for nobody. I did tell them, well what happened here? . . . My instructions
were to you when you came to see me when you came asked me for that key and you

promised you know, when I said to you this key is only for shift change, what happened
after that?’
None of this evidence was controverted.

[40] It was therefore an express term of the agreement that the key to the
small gate would not be used except to enable the guard on duty to admit his
colleague who was relieving him, and to leave the premises himself, when
the shift changed. As is clear from the evidence just quoted the prohibition
was not merely against using the key to allow access to someone without
prior authorisation, as my colleague suggests in para 3; although it was
obviously a tacit term (as pleaded in para 6.8 of the particulars of claim) that
the standing instruction could be relaxed on specific occasions by the first
respondent or a person authorised by him, and the evidence establishes that it
was. The guard’s evidence was:
‘Now if somebody comes to the gate and tells you at the intercom that they want to visit
inside, what will you do? -- If he is a visitor I cannot just open for that person. What can I
do? I can tell him to stand there so that I can confirm with the people inside.

How do you do that? -- There are many way because of if it is during the course of
the day the people, especially the garden boy was just around most of the day and it was
simple to go to his, the place where he is staying you see, to tell him that there is a person
there, can he talk to somebody maybe inside, maybe that guy is visiting someone inside
the house or himself. Then if he is allowing me to open the gate I would open the gate for
that person with his instructions.
. . .

Why will you not phone through to the house? -- Then if ever, because there was
an intercom there, if the intercom is working for the house I could also use it to confirm to
the intercom.

Who will you speak to on the intercom? -- It depends who is going to be visited.’
The evidence of the first respondent was to the same effect, as appears from
the following passage in his evidence, which also describes the status of the
man called Francis to whom the guard referred as ‘the garden boy’:
‘Francis is . . . actually my right hand man . . . he does everything for me basically. If

there is ever a query or anything to ask, there was an intercom system, the guard could
come and ask me or when he wanted to get hold of me. Francis was there just for me, to
assist me in anything that I needed to get done or said or whatever, that is basically what
Francis’ duties are, it is to assist me.

I understand. You have a busy business life. -- Correct.

And management areas around the house you delegated to Francis. -- Correct.’

[41] When the robbers arrived on the night in question, the first respondent
was not there; but we know that Francis was because he was tied up by the
robbers. The only permitted purpose (absent an authorisation to admit
someone) for which the key could be used, was to change shifts. The guard
obtained no authorisation to admit anybody. It is an undeniable fact that he
used the key for a purpose other than to change shifts. He thereby breached
the contract. That breach was undoubtedly the cause of the loss.

[42] The appellant’s counsel advanced two arguments as to why there was
no breach. The first was based on a tacit term and the other was what I shall,
for want of a better term, call compulsion of law.

[43] The tacit term for which counsel contended was that the obligation not
to use the key save for the purpose for which it was given, had to be subject
to a qualification that imported reasonableness. To use the hypothetical
bystander test, this would mean that if the parties were asked ‘Could the
guard use the key for a purpose other than admitting a colleague when the
shift changed, if such use would be reasonable?’ they would both have
answered in the affirmative. I have no doubt that the first respondent, in view
of his emphatic evidence that I have quoted above, would have given exactly
the opposite answer. He would never have agreed to vest a discretion in the
guard. Therefore on the facts of this case, the guard was not entitled to open
the gate to speak to the person he thought was a policeman, no matter how

reasonable that belief or his conduct might have been.

[44] I turn to deal with counsel’s second argument effectively upheld by
my colleague in para 18. Obviously if a policeman, who was entitled to do
so, demanded entry to the premises, the guard would be obliged in law to
comply with that demand, irrespective of the express term of the contract to
which I have referred. But if the demand was not made by a policeman
entitled to make it (and I emphasise that a policeman is not, without more,
entitled to demand access to private property), the admission of the person
making the demand would not be justified and the guard would breach the
contract in using the key to open the gate. Negligence does not arise for
consideration. The guard would only be entitled to disregard the contract if
he was in fact obeying the lawful command of a policeman ─ not if he
reasonably thought that he was doing so. The position is reinforced by
regulation 7(1) in the Code of Conduct for Security Service Providers, 2003
made under s 35 of the Private Security Industry Regulation Act 56 of 2001.
The regulation reads:
‘A security service provider must, within his or her ability, render all reasonable
assistance and co-operation to the members and employees of the Security Services to
enable them to perform any function which they may lawfully perform.’
(‘Security Services’ are defined as meaning the South African Police Service,
the South African National Defence Force, the Directorate of Special
Operations, the National Intelligence Agency, the South African Secret
Service, the Department of Correctional Services and any other official law
enforcement agency or service established by law, irrespective of whether
such an agency or service resorts at national, provincial or local government
level.)
In terms of the regulation not only does the person to whom the assistance
and co-operation has to be rendered, have to be a member or employee of the
security services, but the assistance must be to enable that person to perform

any function he or she ‘may lawfully perform’.

[45] In view of the approach adopted by my colleague (in paras 16 and 17)
to the pleadings and argument, and her statement (in para 16) that it is
‘crucial’ to the determination of inter alia the alleged breach of contract to
consider whether the security guard acted reasonably, there are two points
that require emphasis. The first relates to the terms of the contract. The
second relates to the function of pleadings and the effect of argument.

[46] As to the first point: I have set out the relevant terms of the contract
pleaded, in para 37 above. The obligation to take reasonable steps pleaded in
para 6.5 that qualifies the obligation in para 6.5.2 simply does not, as a
matter of linguistic interpretation, qualify the obligation in para 6.8 viz the
prohibition against allowing persons to gain access ─ however counsel
argued the matter. Nor, more importantly, did it qualify the express
prohibition against using the key to the smaller gate for any purpose other
than to effect shift changes ─ the term that was established on the
uncontradicted evidence quoted in para 39 above. The reasonableness of the
guard’s actions, far from being crucial, is entirely irrelevant to the claim in
contract based on a breach of that term.

[47] As to the second point: cases are decided on the evidence, not on the
pleadings or counsel’s argument. Of course, if the case is formulated in the
pleadings in such a way that the opposite party is prejudiced, the position is
different ─ but that is not the general rule. As Innes CJ said in Robinson v
Randfontein Estates GM Co Ltd 1925 AD 173 at 198:
‘The object of pleading is to define the issues; and parties will be kept strictly to their
pleas where any departure would cause prejudice or would prevent full enquiry. But
within those limits the Court has a wide discretion. For pleadings are made for the Court,
not the Court for pleadings.’

Furthermore, argument advanced by counsel (absent some special feature,
such as an admission of fact that is not permitted to be withdrawn) does not
bind the client, much less the court. That is trite. Lastly on this point, I record
that there was no suggestion of any prejudice whatever when the argument
that the appellant is liable for breach of the express term of the contract
established by the evidence, was put to the appellant’s counsel ─ nor could
there have been; and counsel for the respondents, in terms, adopted the
argument as correct.

[48] I would therefore dismiss the appeal on these grounds. I would do the
same in regard to the claim based in delict.

[49] I share the view of the high court that the guard was negligent ─
particularly because he was a trained security guard and he was stationed at
the entrance of the property for the very purpose of keeping out unauthorised
persons, because of the ease with which precautions could have been taken
and the serious consequences that could ensue if they were not ─ for the
following reasons appearing from the judgment of Satchwell J:
‘[A] reasonable security guard in these circumstances should have ensured that he had
sight of the card presented; gestured back the policeman when he left the window without
giving the guard the opportunity to read the card; gestured back the policeman or the
driver when the guard realised the policeman had left the intercom and was not
responding (or even attempting to respond) through the intercom; perhaps gone to the
pedestrian gate to enquire (through the gate without opening it) which station the SAPS
had come from, which address they wanted and for what purpose; attempted to contact the
main house through the intercom to enquire whether the SAPS had been called and for
what purpose and seeking authorisation to let him in. I find that Mr Mahlangu, in opening
the pedestrian gate, failed to take reasonable appropriate steps to prevent the anticipated
harm from happening. By opening the pedestrian gate the security guard let down the
drawbridge and allowed the intruders to enter the Loureiro castle. This was negligence.’

[50] It only remains for me to record my respectful dissent from the
conclusion reached by my colleague (in para 34) that the second to fourth
respondents should be non-suited in their delictual claim because the guard
did not act unlawfully, and they did not establish that they were owed a legal
duty. (I prefer to use the term ‘wrongfully’ which, although  a synonym for
‘unlawfully’ in this context ─ Telematrix (Pty) Ltd t/a Matrix Vehicle
Tracking v Advertising Standards Authority SA 2006 (1) SA 461 (SCA) para
13 ─ conveys lack of justification without necessarily conveying illegality.)

[51] Of course, as my colleague postulates, the guard could not lawfully
resist opening the gate to a policeman’s demand for entry to the premises if
the latter was lawfully entitled to make that demand. But the person outside
the gate was no policeman and he made no lawful demand. Justification for
the guard’s actions on this basis was therefore absent.

[52] The guard’s subjective state of mind and his actions described by my
colleague are not relevant to the question of wrongfulness ─ which is
whether it would be reasonable, taking into account considerations of public
policy, to impose legal liability on the appellant for harm resulting from the
guard’s conduct; but to the question of negligence ─ which is whether the
guard’s conduct was reasonable, judged in accordance with the test in Kruger
v Coetzee 1966 (2) SA 428 (A) at 430E-F. The test for reasonableness in
each case is entirely different. In Roux v Hattingh 2012 (6) SA 428 (SCA)
para 33 Brand JA quoted the following passage in the majority judgment he
gave as Brand AJ in the Constitutional Court in Le Roux v Dey (Freedom of
Expression Institute and Restorative Justice Centre as Amici Curiae) 2011
(3) SA 274 (CC) para 122, with the addition of the words in parenthesis:
‘In the more recent past our courts have come to recognise, however, that in the context of
the law of delict: (a) the criterion of wrongfulness ultimately depends on a judicial
determination of whether ─ assuming all the other elements of delictual liability to be

present ─ it would be reasonable to impose liability on a defendant for the damages
flowing from specific conduct; and (b) that the judicial determination of that
reasonableness would in turn depend on considerations of public and legal policy in
accordance with constitutional norms. Incidentally, to avoid confusion it should be borne
in mind that, what is meant by reasonableness in the context of wrongfulness has nothing
to do with the reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct [which is part of the element of
negligence], but it concerns the reasonableness of imposing liability on the defendant for
the harm resulting from that conduct.’

[53] As the courts have repeatedly emphasised for over 30 years,
wrongfulness and negligence are discrete elements of the modern Aquilian
action. In my view, both were established by the second to fourth
respondents. I have already dealt with the element of negligence. And I have
no hesitation in concluding that public policy requires the guard’s employer,
the appellant, to be held liable for the guard’s negligence, and that a legal
duty was therefore owed to the second to fourth respondents: The guard
opened the small gate. That was a positive act and the cause of the loss. The
loss was not pure economic loss (the criticism by Prof  Neethling, ‘Delictual
liability of a security firm for the theft of a vehicle guarded by its employee’
(2011) 74 THRHR 169 at 170, of  Viv’s Tippers (Edms) Bpk v Pha Phama
Staff Services (Edms) Bpk h/a Pha Phama Security 2010 (4) SA 455 (SCA)
para 5, is in my respectful view well founded ─ cf AB Ventures Ltd v
Siemens Ltd 2011 (4) SA 614 (SCA) para 6, n 6). There is therefore a
presumption that the action by the guard was wrongful: see eg Trustees, Two
Oceans Aquarium Trust v Kantey & Templer (Pty) Ltd 2006 (3) SA 138
(SCA) para 10; Roux para 32 and authorities there cited. The presumption
was not rebutted.

[54] Either way, therefore, whether in contract or delict, the respondents
should in my view succeed.

_______________
T D CLOETE
JUDGE OF APPEAL

APPEARANCES

For Appellant
W H G Van der Linde SC (with him D A Turner)
Instructed by:
Norton Rose South Africa, Johannesburg
Webbers, Bloemfontein

For Respondent:
T W Beckerling SC (with him J G Smit)
Instructed:
Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr, Sandton
Naudés, Bloemfontein
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA SUMMARY – JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

From:
The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal
Date:
15 March 2013
Status:
Immediate

Please note that the media summary is intended for the benefit of the media and does not
form part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal.

IMVULA QUALITY PROTECTION (PTY) LTD v LICINIO LOUREIRO &
OTHERS

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) today by a majority upheld an appeal against an order
of the South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg declaring that the appellant (Imvula
Quality Protection (Pty) Ltd) was liable to the respondents in both contract and delict for
the loss they had suffered as a result of a robbery that had occurred at their family home.
The SCA held that the respondents had failed to prove both the contractual and delictual
claims.

The appellant had provided a 24-hour guarding service at the respondents’ home pursuant
to an agreement concluded by the appellant’s representative and the first respondent’s
nephew. The service was paid for by a close corporation of which the first respondent, his
nephew and his father were members. The guards provided by the appellant were placed at
a guardhouse at the entrance of the respondents’ home. Subsequent to the conduct of the

guards in opening the main driveway gate to visitors without the first respondent’s prior
approval, the intercom was partially disabled so that the guards would not be able to open
and close the main gate. The first respondent then gave the key to the pedestrian gate to the
guards which, he said, was for purposes of shift changes only.

On the day of the robbery, a vehicle flashing a blue police light arrived at the respondents’
home and stopped near the guardhouse. A passenger wearing what appeared to be a police
uniform, including a reflective vest marked ‘Police’, alighted and approached the bullet-
proof glass of the guardhouse. He showed the guard on duty what appeared to be a police
identity card. The guard testified that he did not have sufficient opportunity to inspect the
card, nor did he see the photo thereon to compare it to the man before him. To him, the card
looked like a valid police identity card. The guard had difficulty establishing
communication with the man and as result decided to open the pedestrian gate to assist
what appeared to him to be a policeman, as he was obliged to do so by law. It later
transpired that he had opened the gate to robbers who overpowered him at gunpoint. As a
result of gaining entry to the respondents’ house, the robbers stole belongings valued at
R11 million, including jewellery. The first respondent was paid a certain amount of money
by an insurer in respect of the value of part of the jewellery that had been stolen.

The respondents then instituted proceedings against the appellant for the loss they had
suffered. Their claims, based both in contract and delict, were upheld by the high court.
While the high court held that the guard could not be criticised for believing that he was
dealing with a genuine policeman, it nevertheless held that he was negligent in failing to
take reasonable steps to prevent the harm from happening and that his conduct resulted in
the robbery. The court held that the appellant was liable to the respondents. Aggrieved by
the order of the high court, the appellant then appealed to the SCA.

Before the SCA there were four issues. The first was whether on a proper interpretation of
the written ‘agreement of loss’ the first respondent had concluded with the insurer, the first
respondent had ceded his entire right to claim from the appellant to the insurer. The
appellant contended that the first respondent had ceded his right to the insurer. In rejecting

this argument the SCA held that the agreement expressed a cession of the claim in relation
to a limited loss and not the full loss. Thus, the first respondent was not precluded from
claiming the difference between the total value of the alleged loss and the amount paid out
by the insurer. The second issue related to the identity of the parties to the guarding
services agreement. The appellant argued that the close corporation, and not the first
respondent, was a party to the agreement, and that the first respondent had no locus standi
to claim from the appellant. The argument was premised on the fact that the guarding
services were paid for by the close corporation. The SCA did not agree with this argument.
It held that the invoices relating to the agreement referred to the first respondent and that
the appellant did not adduce any evidence to contradict the evidence of the first
respondent’s nephew that he had acted as a family member and not as a member of the
close corporation.

The third issue was whether the appellant or its employee, the guard, had breached the
contract. The first respondent contended that the appellant had breached the contract in that
the guard had opened the gate contrary to instructions not to do so. The SCA stated that the
evidence of what happened at the gate was crucial to the determination of the alleged
breach and the alleged liability in delict. This was so as the court was required to consider
the reasonableness of the guard’s conduct in both legs of the respondents’ claim. The SCA
held in respect of the contractual claim that no reasonable person in the position of the
guard could have believed that he was not dealing with a genuine policeman. The
respondent had therefore failed to prove blameworthy conduct on the part of the guard, and
had also failed to prove the alleged breach of the contract. The first respondent’s instruction
that the guards should not open the pedestrian gate for any purpose other than shift changes
could not have been intended to apply to police officers performing official duties.

The fourth issue related to the second to fourth respondents’ delictual claims and was based
on the vicarious liability of the appellant for the conduct of the guard. It was whether the
conduct of the guard in opening the pedestrian gate constituted negligence and was causally
connected to the damages suffered by the respondents. The SCA stated that the second to
fourth respondents could only succeed if they could prove that the guard had acted

unlawfully and breached the legal duty owed to them. The circumstances under which the
guard had opened the gate were also relevant in determining this issue. With regard to those
circumstances and the fact that the guard was by law required to assist members of the
police, the SCA held that the guard could not be held to have acted unlawfully when he
opened the gate. It followed that the respondents had failed to prove the legal duty owed to
them and that the appellant was not vicariously liable for the loss and/or damages they had
suffered as a result of the robbery.

The minority held that the guard had been negligent and that the respondents’ claims should
succeed.

Having answered the last two issues in favour of the appellant, the majority upheld the
appeal.