Pay Each Other -Court Orders G4 Security & ZANACO
By Dickson Jere
The bank – ZANACO – hired the services of private security firm called G4 Security to guard a number of sites, including ATMs and properties that were repossessed by the bank and houses of its top executive. However, G4 Security terminated the contract after failing to agree with the bank to increase the fees due to the increase in minimum wage by government.
G4 Security rendered the invoices for the services rendered amounting to ZMK 4 million. However, ZANACO refused to pay saying it had discovered that property worth about ZMK 4 million had been stolen from the sites where G4 Security was guarding. So, they decided to set-off the loss from the invoices.
Unhappy, G4 Security sued the bank in the High Court, contending that some of the reported thefts happened before they took over the sites and that the value of the stolen properties were inflated or not ascertained.
On the other hand, ZANACO counterclaimed that the loss of property was due to negligence by the security firm and that at times premises were left without guards and therefore should bear the consequences of the theft.
The Judge heard both sides of the evidence and decided thus;
“I find that both parties have proved their respective cases on a balance of probabilities,” the Judge said, adding that each side owed each other.
The Court said the security company had an obligation to make sure that the property of the bank was safe and any theft that took place is blamed on the firm and should therefore pay.
“The losses suffered by the defendant were as a result of the plaintiff in this case and therefore, the plaintiff was obliged to indemnify the defendant of the losses,” the a judge said, adding that evidence showed that some properties were unmanned by the G4 security during the contract period.
The Court ordered that the matter goes to the Registrar for assessment and the amounts found should be set-off from each other based on the evidence to be produced.
“Upon assessment, I order that any amounts found payable to the defendant for the losses be setoff from the amount the defendant owes the plaintiff ZMW 4,035,777.00,” the Judge said.
The Court declined to give damages to the bank saying the consequential loss is the same and will be covered by the amounts due on the theft incurred for the lost property.
Case citation – G4 Secure Solutions Limited v Zambia National Commercial Bank Plc – 2025/HPC/0660 and judgement delivered last week.
Lecture Notes;
- This is an interesting case in which both sides proved their cases and won. However, the final determination will be made a fate assessment and setoff. One who will lose at this stage will pay legal costs to the other. ZANACO will need to bring evidence show the losses suffered and then knock off the amount from the invoice due for services provided.