Loureiro and Others v Imvula Quality Protection (Pty) Ltd

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 2014 (3) SA 394 (CC)

Loureiro and Others v Imvula Quality Protection (Pty) Ltd
2014 (3) SA 394 (CC)

2014 (3) SA p394

Citation	2014 (3) SA 394 (CC)
Case No	CCT 40/13; [2014] ZACC 4
Court	Constitutional Court
Judge	Moseneke ACJ, Skweyiya ADCJ, Cameron J, Dambuza AJ, Froneman J, Jafta J, Madlanga J, Nkabinde J, Van der Westhuizen J and Zondo J
Heard	November 6, 2013
Judgment	March 20, 2014
Counsel	G Marcus SC (with N Ferreira) for the applicants.; W van der Linde SC (with D Turner and K Serafino-Dooley) for the respondent.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde G

Delict — Elements — Negligence — What constitutes — Guard opening gate to H robber posing as policeman — Held that guard negligent.

Headnote : Kopnota

Mr Loureiro contracted Imvula Quality Protection (Pty) Ltd to provide security guards for his home, the agreement requiring the guards to obtain the authorisation of Mr or Mrs Loureiro before admitting anyone onto the property. One evening a BMW with a blue light on its dashboard came up I the drive and a man in dark blue clothing, a vest marked 'Police', and a police cap, alighted. He flashed an identity card at the guard in the guardhouse and the guard tried to speak to him on the intercom, but got no answer. The guard then opened the gate, the man produced a gun, accomplices emerged, and a robbery ensued.

The Loureiros sued Imvula: Mr Loureiro for damages for breach of contract; J Mrs Loureiro and her sons for damages in delict. The high court found for

2014 (3) SA p395

them but this was overturned by the Supreme Court of Appeal. [*] On appeal, A the Constitutional Court held that Imvula was in breach of contract and also liable in delict, the guard's conduct having been wrongful and negligent. Negligent, in that a reasonable person would have foreseen the possibility that the man in blue was not a policeman; and would have taken steps to ascertain who he was, why he sought entry, and whether — as a policeman — he was making a lawful demand. A reasonable person would B also have tried to contact the house or Imvula to find out if the police were expected. (Paragraphs [46], [57], [60], [62] – [63] and [67] at 408G – 409A, 411F, 412G – 413C and 414C – D.)

Cases Considered

Annotations

Case law C

Administrator, Natal v Edouard 1990 (3) SA 581 (A): referred to

Ashcor Secunda (Pty) Ltd v Sasol Synthetic Fuels (Pty) Ltd [2011] ZASCA 158: dictum in para [5] applied

Barkhuizen v Napier 2007 (5) SA 323 (CC) (2007 (7) BCLR 691; [2007] ZACC 5): referred to

Bothma v Els and Others 2010 (2) SA 622 (CC) (2010 (1) SACR 184; D [2009] ZACC 27): dictum in paras [91] – [93] applied

Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (Centre for Applied Legal Studies Intervening) 2001 (4) SA 938 (CC) (2002 (1) SACR 79; 2001 (10) BCLR 995; [2001] ZACC 22): referred to

Charter Hi (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Transport [2011] ZASCA 89: dictum in para [32] applied E

Curtis v Johannesburg Municipality 1906 TS 308: referred to

Durr v Absa Bank Ltd and Another 1997 (3) SA 448 (SCA) ([1997] 3 All SA 1): referred to

F v Minister of Safety and Security and Others 2012 (1) SA 536 (CC) (2012 (3) BCLR 244; [2011] ZACC 37): dicta in paras [38] and [40] applied

Food and Allied Workers Union v Ngcobo NO and Another 2013 (12) BCLR 1343 (CC) ([2013] ZACC 36): dictum in para [24] applied F

Fose v Minister of Safety and Security 1997 (3) SA 786 (CC) (1997 (7) BCLR 851; [1997] ZACC 6): referred to

Glennie, Egan & Sikkel v Du Toit's Kloof Development Co (Pty) Ltd 1953 (2) SA 85 (C): referred to

Gouda Boerdery BK v Transnet 2005 (5) SA 490 (SCA) ([2004] 4 All SA 500): referred to G

Hawekwa Youth Camp and Another v Byrne 2010 (6) SA 83 (SCA) ([2010] 2 All SA 312): referred to

Imvula Quality Protection (Pty) Ltd v Loureiro and Others 2013 (3) SA 407 (SCA): reversed on appeal

Ingledew v Financial Services Board: In re Financial Services Board v Van der Merwe and Another H 2003 (4) SA 584 (CC) (2003 (8) BCLR 825; [2003] ZACC 8): referred to

K v Minister of Safety and Security 2005 (6) SA 419 (CC) (2005 (9) BCLR 835; [2005] 8 BLLR 749; [2005] ZACC 8): dictum in para [21] applied

Kruger v Coetzee 1966 (2) SA 428 (A): dictum at 430E – F applied

Le Roux and Others v Dey (Freedom of Expression Institute and Restorative I Justice Centre as Amici Curiae) 2011 (3) SA 274 (CC) (2011 (6) BCLR 577; [2011] ZACC 4): referred to

2014 (3) SA p396

Lee v Minister for Correctional Services 2013 (2) SA 144 (CC) (2013 (2) BCLR 129; [2012] ZACC 30): dictum in para [53] applied A

Local Transitional Council of Delmas and Another v Boshoff 2005 (5) SA 514 (SCA) ([2005] 4 All SA 175): referred to

Loureiro and Others v Imvula Quality Protection (Pty) Ltd [2011] ZAGPJHC 140: referred to

Mbatha v University of Zululand [2013] ZACC 43: referred to B

Michael and Another v Linksfield Park Clinic (Pty) Ltd and Another 2001 (3) SA 1188 (SCA) ([2002] 1 All SA 384): dictum in para [34] applied

Minister of Finance and Others v Gore NO 2007 (1) SA 111 (SCA) ([2007] 1 All SA 309): referred to

Minister of Safety and Security v Luiters 2007 (2) SA 106 (CC) (2007 (3) BCLR 287; C [2006] ZACC 21): referred to

Minister of Safety and Security v Van Duivenboden 2002 (6) SA 431 (SCA) ([2002] 3 All SA 741; [2002] ZASCA 79): dictum in para [21] applied

Minister van Polisie v Ewels 1975 (3) SA 590 (A): referred to

Ngubane v South African Transport Services 1991 (1) SA 756 (A): dictum at 776H applied

Olitzki Property Holdings v State Tender Board and Another 2001 (3) SA 1247 (SCA) (2001 (8) BCLR 779; [2001] ZASCA 51): referred to D

Penderis and Gutman NNO v Liquidators, Short-Term Business, AA Mutual Insurance Association Ltd 1992 (4) SA 836 (A): dictum at 842I applied

Phumelela Gaming and Leisure Ltd v Gründlingh and Others 2007 (6) SA 350 (CC) (2006 (8) BCLR 883; [2006] ZACC 6): referred to

Radio Pretoria v Chairperson, Independent Communications Authority of South Africa, and Another 2005 (4) SA 319 (CC) (2005 (3) BCLR 231; [2004] ZACC 24): dictum in para [22] applied E

Rail Commuters Action Group and Others v Transnet Ltd t/a Metrorail and Others 2005 (2) SA 359 (CC) (2005 (4) BCLR 301; [2004] ZACC 20): dictum in para [60] applied

Rashid v Durban City Council 1975 (3) SA 920 (D): referred to F

SATAWU and Another v Garvas and Others 2013 (1) SA 83 (CC) (2012 (8) BCLR 840; [2012] ZACC 13): referred to

Steenkamp NO v Provincial Tender Board, Eastern Cape 2007 (3) SA 121 (CC) (2007 (3) BCLR 300; [2006] ZACC 16): dictum in para [19] applied

Telematrix (Pty) Ltd t/a Matrix Vehicle Tracking v Advertising Standards Authority SA 2006 (1) SA 461 (SCA) ([2006] 1 All SA 6): referred to G

Thoroughbred Breeders' Association v Price Waterhouse 2001 (4) SA 551 (SCA) ([2001] 4 All SA 161): referred to

Total South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Bekker NO 1992 (1) SA 617 (A): referred to

Trustees, Two Oceans Aquarium Trust v Kantey & Templer (Pty) Ltd 2006 (3) SA 138 (SCA) ([2007] 1 All SA 240): dictum in para [11] applied

Van Wyk v Lewis 1924 AD 438: dictum at 444 applied H

Veldman v Director of Public Prosecutions, Witwatersrand Local Division 2007 (3) SA 210 (CC) (2006 (2) SACR 319; 2007 (9) BCLR 929; [2005] ZACC 22): referred to.

Case Information

G Marcus SC (with N Ferreira) for the applicants.

W van der Linde SC (with D Turner and K Serafino-Dooley) for the respondent. I

An appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal. The order is in para [69].

Order

J The following order is made:

2014 (3) SA p397

1.

Leave to appeal is granted. A

2.

The appeal is upheld.

3.

The order of the Supreme Court of Appeal is set aside and the order of the high court is replaced with the following order:

(a)

The respondent is declared liable in contract to the first applicant for whatever damages may be proved. B

(b)

The respondent is declared liable in delict to the second, third and fourth applicants for whatever damages may be proved.

4.

The respondent is ordered to pay the applicants' costs in this court, the Supreme Court of Appeal and the high court, including, where applicable, the costs of two counsel. C

Judgment

Van der Westhuizen J (Moseneke ACJ, Skweyiya ADCJ, Cameron J, Dambuza AJ, Froneman J, Jafta J, Madlanga J, Nkabinde J and Zondo J concurring):

Introduction D

[1] The founding values of our Constitution include human dignity, the advancement of human rights and freedoms and the rule of law. [1] The Bill of Rights recognises the rights to life, freedom and security of the person, freedom from all forms of violence, privacy and not to be arbitrarily deprived of property. [2] And the preamble to the Constitution calls for our people to be protected. [3] Our police service is mandated — E

'to prevent, combat and investigate crime, to maintain public order, to protect and secure the inhabitants of the Republic and their property, and to uphold and enforce the law'. [4]

[2] Yet, there is a disturbingly dark side to the often-stated miracle of our F constitutional democracy. South Africa is plagued by crime — often viciously violent, sometimes sophisticated and organised, often ridiculously random, but always audacious and contemptuous of the values we are supposed to believe in and the human rights enshrined in our Constitution — perhaps not unlike other young democracies. More than 16 000 murders were reported to have taken place in the G 2012/2013 year — almost 45 a day — and almost 106 000 armed robberies. [5] Many of our people live behind high walls and electrified fences; others rely on the communities around them for security; and many are mercilessly exposed to the cruelty of crime.

2014 (3) SA p398

Van der Westhuizen J (Moseneke ACJ, Skweyiya ADCJ, Cameron J, Dambuza AJ, Froneman J, Jafta J, Madlanga J, Nkabinde J and Zondo J concurring)

A [3] The South...