The High Court has ordered DDNS Security Operations, trading as Securico, to pay US$675,000 to How Mine after the security firm lost 11.95kg of gold bullion during an armed robbery on October 4, 2022, while transporting the precious cargo to Bulawayo.
How Mine accused Securico of failing to provide adequate and competent security for the consignment. The mine argued that the company did not use an armoured truck, deployed security personnel without panic buttons, and some guards lacked airtime to raise an alarm during the robbery.
Securico disputed the claim, maintaining that the robbery was an unforeseeable event and no amount of preparation or foresight could have prevented the loss.
However, in a judgment handed down on July 1, Justice Joseph Chilimbe ruled in favour of How Mine.
The judge stated:
“I must take due regard of the fact that officially, both parties (How Mine and Securico) were alive to the risks confronting bullion runs, not least of which was the compromise of security arrangements.
I must relate to a paradox emerging from the law and facts herein from that aspect. Securico as a public carrier was obliged, under the Praetor’s Edict’s strict liability, to deliver the consignment intact. It therefore assumed risk when it accepted the commission to ferry How Mine’s bullion under security arrangement which by Securico’s standards, were less than adequate.
But the law extended a reprieve to Securico in the event that loss of consignment was occasioned by superior force. The resultant anomaly however being that the same insufficient arrangements were, according to the evidence given and arguments raised by Securico, contributory to the causus fortuitus. Does the question not arise then that defendant walked into a situation which it knew very well could arise? What then is the effect of this possible conclusion on the defence of vis major (unavoidable event or circumstance, beyond the control of parties involved) tendered herein?
In its plea, Securico averred that the event was unforeseeable. In evidence, its witnesses accepted that robberies formed a well-known risk.”
Justice Chilimbe also criticised the failure by the security team to trigger alarms or call for backup, noting that this lack of response “bordered on negligence.”
He added that Securico transported the gold using “soft skin” vehicles instead of armoured vans and knowingly operated with limited firepower. The company had also instructed its guards not to engage robbers in gunfights, prioritising the preservation of life.
Said the judge:
“That decision (to preserve life) was crucial to the evaluation of the guards’ response during and after the robbery. The question being; – where a carrier sets out on a dangerous enterprise involving the prospect of violent depredations, does it not in fact assume the risk of loss where it restrains its personnel from boldly engaging the despoilers? And does that risk not escalate where there are known security inadequacies? Including deployment of a soft skin van which the staid Mr Marko Mukazi (Securico crew commander) condemned as clearly unfit for purpose?”
He concluded:
“… I reach the conclusion that Securico failed to discharge the requisite onus of proving the defence of vis major. How Mine succeeds in the main.
Securico is ordered to pay How Mine the sum of US$675,000 and interest thereon at the rate of 5 percent per annum with effect from October 4, 2022, up to date of payment in full.”
Advocate Thabani Mpofu represented How Mine, while Romeo Chatereza appeared for Securico.
