Government of the Republic of South Africa (Department of Industries) v Fibre Spinners & Weavers (Pty) Ltd

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Didcott J
• Judgment Date: 01 February 1977
• Citation: 1977 (2) SA 324 (D)
• Hearing Date: 08 June 1976
• Court: Durban and Coast Local Division

Didcott, J.:

The plaintiff is suing the defendant for damages amounting to R207 843. The defendant has filed an exception to the plaintiff's particulars of claim, which must now be decided. According to the defendant, they do not disclose a C cause of action.

The particulars of claim start with the allegations that a contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant; that the defendant thereby undertook for reward to manufacture jute grainbags for the plaintiff, to release them to the plaintiff as and when the plaintiff required it to do so, and in the meantime to store them in its premises D for the plaintiff; that 477 800 grainbags worth R207 843 altogether, which the defendant had manufactured and was storing for the plaintiff under the agreement, were stolen from the defendant's premises over a period of about nine months and not recovered; and that the plaintiff, E to which the stolen grain-bags belonged, thus lost them.

The defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for such loss, so the particulars of claim continue, on one or another of the grounds that:

(a)

the defendant, unable as it now is to release the grainbags in question to the plaintiff as and when required, is in breach of its contract with the plaintiff;

(b)

the defendant is vicariously responsible to the F plaintiff for the thefts;

(c)

the thefts resulted from the defendant's gross negligence, or, alternatively, from its negligence.

The plaintiff has fired this salvo, rather than a single shot, in an attempt to penetrate the protection gained by the defendant from what are said to have been supplementary terms G of the contract, added after its conclusion but before the thefts, which governed the storage of the stolen grainbags. According to the particulars of claim, they were recorded in a letter to the defendant which the Secretary for Industries wrote on the plaintiff's behalf. A copy of the letter is attached to the particulars of claim. The relevant part of it goes like this:

"2. In consideration of Messrs. Fibre Spinners and Weavers H arranging, and keeping in force, insurance as detailed in para. 2 hereunder, you are hereby absolved from all responsibility for loss of or damage howsoever arising in respect of this department's stocks of... finished jute... products whilst in the care of your company and in or upon any premises owned or used by your company and/or any of its associated or subsidiary companies; but

3. it shall be your company's responsibility to maintain, with my department's interest properly noted in the policies, insurance in the following forms:

(i)

Grainbags:

Cover as reflected in all risks policy BAR 0512000280 (or any policy issued in

Didcott J

replacement). Every year this policy is renewed the Department must be advised of its renewal (a) stating that none of the conditions contained in the original policy has been changed and (b) furnishing the Department with a photostat or certified copy of the renewal receipt.

(ii)

...

4. A Premiums payable by yourselves in respect of the insurance cover under para. 3 (i) above shall continue to be borne by yourselves...".

Counsel agreed that the reference in para. 2 of the letter to "para. 2 hereunder" was a mistake, and that these words were to be read as if they had been "para. 3 hereunder". The stolen B grainbags, it was likewise common cause, were "finished jute products" for the purposes of para. 2 of the letter.

The papers also contain a copy, annexed to further particulars amplifying the particulars of claim, of an all risks insurance policy numbered 0512000280. The further particulars identify it as the policy specified in para. 3 (i) of the letter, and C assert that it was already in force when the letter was written. One learns from the copy that the "cover as reflected in all risks policy BAR 0512000280", as the letter put it, included the insurance, against the risk of loss by theft, of jute bags owned by the plaintiff and stored in the defendant's premises. The copy furthermore shows that the policy was issued D in favour of both the Jute Industry Control Board and the defendant, which it collectively described as "the insured". It is common cause that the Jute Industry Control Board must be equated for present purposes with the plaintiff.

In an effort to steer clear of the exemption from liability which the letter granted to the defendant, the plaintiff has E pleaded various limitations to it. Somewhat elaborate permutations have been used, which base the separate causes of action upon different interpretations of the immunity's extent. What they amount to is this. Under the heading of each alternative ground for attack on the defendant, the plaintiff has alleged that, according to the true construction of the letter, the defendant was absolved from liability on all the other grounds, but not on that particular one.

F All the causes of action but the first need further explanation. Paras. 10 to 13 of the particulars of claim contain the plaintiff's allegations in support of its case that the defendant is vicariously responsible to it for the thefts. Its case of gross negligence, or alternatively of negligence, emerges on the other hand from para. 14 of the particulars of claim. Referring to the defendant's store where the grainbags G were kept and from which they were stolen as "die gemelde store" or "die gemelde bergingstore", the paragraphs in question read as follows:

"10.

Die gemelde diefstal is gepleeg deur ene Jan Abezini van Wyk, ene Robert Milburn en wyle R. F. Milburn wat in samewerking met mekaar opgetree het.

11. (a)

H Te alle tersaaklike tye was gemelde R. F. Milburn in diens van die verweerder as die hoof sekuriteitsbeampte.

(b)

In sy hoedanigheid as hoof sekuriteitsbeampte was die veilige bewaring van die gemelde sakke sowel as die toegang tot die gemelde store onder sy direkte beheer en toesig.

12.

Die gemelde diefstal in para. 10 vermeld is moontlik gemaak deur die aktiewe en doelbewuste medewerking van gemelde R. F. Milburn wat in sy voormelde hoedanigheid:

Didcott J

(a)

die hekke wat tot die gemelde store toegang verleen vir gemelde Van Wyk en gemelde Milburn oopgesluit het; en

(b)

gemelde Van Wyk en gemelde Milburn toegelaat het om die gemelde sakke ongestoord uit die gemelde store te laat A verwyder, op voertuie te laai en aldus weg te karwei.

13.

Deur sy optrede vermeld in paras. 10 en l2 hiervan het gemelde wyle R. F. Milburn gehandel gedurende en binne die bestek van sy diensverhouding met die verweerder.

14 (a)

Te alle relevante tye het die verweerder die direkte fisiese beheer en kontrole oor die gemelde sakke op B hom geneem en uitge-oefen.

(b)

In die omstandighede het daar regtens 'n plig op die verweerder gerus om die gemelde beheer en kontrole op 'n behoorlike, voldoende en redelike wyse uit te oefen.

(c)

Die verweerder het nagelaat, in stryd met die plig in C sub-para. (b) vermeld, om die gemelde beheer en kontrole op 'n behoorlike, voldoende en redelike wyse uit te oefen ten gevolge waarvan die gemelde sakke gesteel is en die eiser skade gely het, soos voormeld.

(d)

Die gemelde skade is veroorsaak deur die growwe nalatigheid, alternatiewelik, die nalatigheid van die D verweerder wat in een of meer van die volgende opsigte nalatig was:

(i)

hy het 'n persoon as sekuriteitsbeampte aangestel wat nie bevoeg en bekwaam was om die pligte van 'n sekuriteits-beampte behoorlik en eerlik uit te oefen nie;

(ii)

hy het nagelaat om toe te sien dat daar 'n E voldoende en behoorlike kontrole uitgeoefen word oor die wyse waarop gemelde sekuriteitsbeampte sy pligte uitvoer;

(iii)

hy het die pligte van die gemelde sekuriteitsbeampte 50 ingeklee dat hy laasgenoemde in staat gestel het om die pleeg van 'n diefstal van 'n aansienlike aantal sakke oor 'n lang F tydperk moontlik te maak en te bewerkstellig;

(iv)

hy het nagelaat om enige, alternatiewelik, voldoende kontrole uit te oefen oor die voorraad wat oor die relevante tyd in die gemelde bergingstore gestoor was;

(v)

hy het nagelaat om voldoende en redelike voorsorgmaatreëls te tref om te verhoed dat 'n groot hoeveelheid sakke oor 'n lang tydperk uit die gemelde store verwyder word;

(vi)

hy het nagelaat om voldoende, alternatiewelik, redelike voorsorgmaatreëls te tref om onmiddellik vas te stel of enige van die sakke uit die gemelde store op H onregmatige wyse verwyder is;

(vii)

hy het nie voldoende en tydige voorraadopnames van die voorraad in die gemelde store gemaak nie."

The defendant sought further particulars in this connection. It asked the following questions:

"2.

Paras. 12 and 13:

(1)

In what sense is it alleged that R. F. Milburn was acting in his capacity as chief security officer ('in sy voormelde hoedanig-heid') in acting as set out in para. 12?

Didcott J

(2)

In what sense is it alleged that the said R. F. Milburn was acting in the course of his employment in acting as set out in paras. 10 and 12?

(3)

In particular, is it alleged that it was part of the A said R. F. Milburn's employment:

(a)

to co-operate with persons stealing goods under his care?

(b)

to open the gates so as to allow persons to enter in order to steal goods?

(c)

to allow persons to act as set out in para. 12 (b)?

3.

B Para. 14 (c):

(1)

Are the particulars of the manner in which the defendant failed to carry out its duties set out in para. 14 (b), as alleged in para. 14 (c), those set out in para. 14 (d)?

(2)

If not, full particulars are required.

4.

C Para. 14 (d):

(1)

By the allegation that the damage was caused by the gross negligence of the defendant, is it intended to allege:

(a)

that the defendant acted deliberately and knowingly as set out in paras. (i) to (vii)?

...