Tanzania court orders G4S Secure Solution to pay Dangote Sh764million

Summary

• The court upheld a counterclaim raised by the cement company in a Sh618 million lawsuit that the security firm had brought against Dangote in 2018

By Bernard James

More by this Author

Dar es Salaam. The commercial division of the High Court has ordered G4S Secure Solution (T)

Limited to pay cement manufacturer Dangote Industries Ltd Tanzania Sh714 million in compensation for stolen items and equipment that the latter blamed on poor security services by the firm.

The court has also awarded the cement firm Sh50 million in general damages caused by multiple thefts and loss of its properties.

This came after the court upheld a counterclaim raised by the cement company in a Sh618 million lawsuit that the security firm had brought against Dangote in 2018.

G4S sued Dangote in 2018 allegedly for failing to pay them Sh618 in breach of a contract for provision of security services they entered in April, 2016.

Following the suit, Dangote shrugged off the claim and instead raised a counterclaim of Sh1.2 billion against the security firm over losses it blamed on poor security services. The cement firm accused G4S of security lapses which led to the theft and loss of its various items and equipment including copper wires, tyres, rims, lorry batteries, tarpaulins and air conditioners. A security supervisor for the cement giant Philipo Mwamanda, had told the court that the security company’s officers allowed stolen materials to pass by the main gate that was under their guard. The witness further testified that they refused to honour some claims from the security firm after noticing non-improvement of guarding services.

“We sent demand notices to the plaintiff (G4S) on various dates for compensation for losses caused by theft of drum copper wire and other equipment amount to Sh1.7 billion, but the plaintiff refused to compensate the defendant (Dangote),” the witness told the court. Justice Deo Nangela said in his recent decision that Dangote’s refusal to honour security firm’s invoices was justified owing to the various loses which the cement firm suffered in the hands of G4S.

“Since the plaintiff had noted that even his own employees were untrustworthy, there should have been more proactive security interventions in the course of discharging its duty to protect the properties of the defendant,” said the judge.

He said he was satisfied that the security firm failed to provide security services to Dangote as per agreed terms and conditions.