Top court rules private security must do their job
Company can be sued for damages after R11m loss
A BOGUS cop flashed a badge and a grade-A security guard unwittingly let him and his fellow robbers into the secure home of a wealthy Johannesburg family.
Licinio Loureiro and his wife, Venessa, believed their security company had failed them. But they could not convince the Supreme Court of Appeal of this when they tried to hold iMvula Quality Protection liable for damages for the R11-million loss they suffered in the robbery.
The businessman maintains the guard on duty was negligent in opening the gate to a man masquerading as a policeman. There were strict orders in the couple’s agreement with his employer to seek their permission first.
This week, five years later, the Constitutional Court agreed with the Loureiros, ruling — significantly — that security companies could not be protected from such lawsuits.
In addition to 24-hour security, the “extremely securityconscious” Loureiros had installed electric fencing, perimeter protection, beams, multiple alarm systems, a guard house, intercom and CCTV.
On a Thursday night in 2009, soon after moving into their new home in Melrose, the Loureiros left their children, aged two, five and eight, in the care of domestic workers and their “righthand houseman” to attend a school function.
While they were out, their children and their carers were held hostage by the armed gang disguised as policemen.
The gang had arrived at the property in a white BMW with a flashing blue light. The guard, in a bulletproof guardhouse, let them in. Because of this, the court ruled, the contract between iMvula and the Loureiros had been breached and the security company was “vicariously liable in delict” because its employee had acted wrongfully.
There is a great public interest in making sure guards succeed in thwarting avoidable harm
On the night of the robbery, the couple returned home at about 9pm and were confronted by the gang. Venessa was tied up with the children and the staff while Licinio was ordered to show them where their valuables were kept.
On Friday, Loureiro said: “When I saw my children with their hands and ankles tied up, it was my worst nightmare. I just told them to take whatever they want and begged them not to harm my family.”
The Loureiros won a high court order to hold the security company liable, but it was overturned by the Supreme Court of Appeal. They headed to the Constitutional Court.
This week’s judgment stated: “There is a great public interest in making sure that private security companies and their guards, in assuming the role of crime prevention for remuneration, succeed in thwarting avoidable harm. If they are too easily insulated from claims for these harms because of mistakes on their side, they would have little incentive to conduct themselves in a way that avoids causing harm.”
The guard, who was not armed, had no way of communicating with iMvula other than his personal cellphone, which had no airtime.
Although the earlier high court judgment stated that the guard “cannot be criticised” for assuming the robber was a legitimate policeman, he was faulted for not reasonably anticipating harm.
The Constitutional Court disagreed with the appeal court, which had found the guard had no choice but to open for a “policeman”. In not verifying the police identity card, the guard had failed in his duty, the court found.
The Loureiros can now proceed with their damages claim against the security company. — Additional reporting by Monica Laganparsad
hawkeyk@timesmedia.co.za