By Kaylen Moodley / Mooney Ford Attorneys
In the case of Simply Africa Trading (Pty) Ltd v Securitas Technology (2021/5691) [2025] ZAGPJHC 61, a company was left grappling with the consequences of a robbery at their warehouse, and the question of who should be held accountable for the loss came to the forefront. The company (the plaintiff) sought compensation from a security service provider (the defendant), claiming that their failure to monitor a key part of the warehouse led to significant damage. This case brings up some important legal principles, particularly around contract law and delictual liability.
Contractual Liability and Exemption Clauses
In any contract, parties agree to specific responsibilities. In this case, the security company was hired to monitor the warehouse, but there was confusion over what exactly was included in their duties.
The main issue? – Whether the monitoring of a critical server rack was part of the contract.
The defendant argued that it wasn’t their responsibility to monitor the server rack, as it wasn’t part of their agreed-upon services. This highlights a key principle in contract law:
Exemption Clauses: These clauses limit a party’s liability for certain failures or damages, often unless the loss results from gross negligence or fraud. In this case, the court emphasised that, in order for the security company to be held accountable, the plaintiff needed to prove that their actions amounted to gross negligence—an extremely high standard.
Gross Negligence and the Importance of Clarity
In cases where a contract includes an exemption clause, it’s not enough to show that the company made a mistake. For liability to arise, the mistake must be serious enough to be classified as gross negligence, meaning a severe failure in duty or care. Simply failing to act on an alarm, as argued by the plaintiff, did not meet this high threshold.
In this case, the court determined that the security company’s actions were not grossly negligent, as they followed standard procedures and didn’t act recklessly or with intentional disregard for the situation.
Delictual Liability: When Contractual Agreements Aren’t Enough
While the contractual argument focused on the security company’s failure to monitor the warehouse, the plaintiff also sought to be compensated by the security company in delict. This means they wanted to hold the defendant accountable based on the wrongful act of not responding to an alarm, which caused harm.
However, the court was reluctant to apply delictual principles in a matter which is based on a contractual agreement. Delictual liability typically comes into play when someone’s wrongful act causes harm outside the scope of a contract, but in this case, the court found that the existing contract between the parties covered the situation.
The Relationship Between Contract and Delict
The case also highlighted an important legal principle regarding the relationship between contract law and delict. Courts are generally hesitant to add additional delictual liability if the contract already defines the responsibilities. The ruling follows previous cases, like Country Cloud Trading CC v MEC, Department of Infrastructure Development, Gauteng (CCT 185/13) [2014] (12) BCLR 1397 (CC), which caution against overcomplicating matters with additional delictual obligations when a clear contract exists.
In essence, if the contract outlines the duties and liabilities, the courts are likely to stick with those terms rather than introducing new legal concepts that might complicate the relationship.
Photo by Cytonn Photography on Unsplash
