Guard blamed for R11m home theft
|Published
650 Licinio Loureiro and his wife Vanessa during the sitting at the Constitutional Court as his case against a security company begins. 061113. Picture: Bongiwe Mchunu 650 Licinio Loureiro and his wife Vanessa during the sitting at the Constitutional Court as his case against a security company begins. 061113. Picture: Bongiwe Mchunu
Johannesburg - A security company should be held liable for failing to properly train an employee whose actions allowed fake police access to a house where they stole valuables worth R11 million
This is according to the legal team of Joburg homeowner Licinio Loureiro in the Constitutional Court on Wednesday.
They said the guard employed by iMvula Quality Protection was supposed to deny entry to any visitor - even extended family - unless there was prior permission from Loureiro.
The dispute dates back to January 2009 when armed men gained access to Loureiro’s Melrose property after the security guard opened a pedestrian gate strictly to be used for guard shift changes, as stated in the contract between the parties.
The men were dressed as police officers, arrived in a BMW fitted with blue lights, flashed a bogus police badge and pulled a gun on the guard when he opened the gate and then made their way towards the house.
About R11m in goods and jewellery was stolen, most of which was uninsured because Loureiro believed his security was strong enough.
In 2011, the Johannesburg High Court ruled in favour of Loureiro when he sued iMvula for damages. The security company took it on appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), where that decision was overturned in March this year.
The SCA judgment said the guard, July Mahlangu, wasn’t negligent in believing a gangster was a policeman and opening the heavily fortified home’s gate.
On Wednesday, senior counsel for Loureiro, Gilbert Marcus, said while the guard might have been negligent, there was also a “critical failure” on iMvula’s part in failing to properly instruct Mahlangu not to open the gate or how to find out what the men wanted without doing so.
However, Willem van der Linde SC, for iMvula, said Mahlangu was acting in good faith that the men were policemen and that he could not have foreseen that opening the gate would necessarily mean they would enter the property.
“There’s no evidence to substantiate that,” he said, adding that Mahlangu was opening the gate to find out what the men wanted.
“He was acting in a way… that was reasonable in the circumstances.”
But this was questioned by one of the judges of the court and by Marcus.
“It’s quite likely they will come in once you open the security door,” Justice Johann van der Westhuizen said.
“With the greatest respect, that is a hair-splitting distinction,” Marcus said in his replying argument.
Marcus had earlier argued that Mahlangu could have been “reasonably” expected to be able to find out what the men wanted without opening the gate.
Outside court, Loureiro maintained “there has to be accountability for someone’s actions. Otherwise, what’s the point of having a security guard if he will just let people in?”
Judgment was reserved.
brendan.roane@inl.co.za
The Star