1 This is an appeal against a decision in the magistrate's court upholding the respondent's claim for damages against the appellant arising from a written agreement (the agreement) concluded between the parties. I shall describe the parties as they were in the court below, ie as defendant and plaintiff respectively.
2 The agreement provided that the defendant was to supply the plaintiff, a miner who operated a digging, with two guards to guard his equipment at his site on the farm Syferfontein in the Wolmaransstad district. One guard was to be on duty during the day and one at night. This case concerns the conduct of the night guard.
3 Clause 2 of the agreement provides:
The general duties of the guard/s shall be to monitor the premises or part of the premises where he/they had been placed and to immediately sound alarm, should he/they notice any crime or unusual occurrence.
4 The evidence showed that the night guard was placed to monitor the whole of the plaintiff's site. The site was one hectare in extent. No digging or mining operations took place at night. The night guard was supplied with a cellphone, a torch and a firearm. Other than the guard's torch, there was no source of light.
ADT Security Services CC v Brink (A55/15)  ZAGPPHC 5710.17 MB