By Michael Salant | Senior Risk Advisor | Econorisk Broker Consultants
A recent High Court judgment is a reminder that the actions of security officers in a few critical minutes can have consequences that take years to resolve.
Security officers are expected to make difficult decisions, often in seconds. They confront suspected criminals, respond to alarms, protect people and property and, where necessary, restrain individuals until the police arrive.
But what happens when the intervention itself results in harm?
A recent judgment, Bebe v Xhobani Security Services, provides a sobering example.
What happened?
The case arose from an incident at Walter Sisulu University.
Mr Bebe and another man were suspected of involvement in the theft of a student’s cellphone. Security officers apprehended them, handcuffed them and took them to a guardhouse. A hostile group of students followed them to the guardhouse. The situation escalated, with windows being broken and the group eventually forcing its way into the guardhouse. Bebe, who remained handcuffed, was assaulted.
The consequences were devastating
Bebe suffered a traumatic head injury, underwent surgery and spent months in hospital. He required extensive rehabilitation, including learning to walk again, and was left with significant ongoing physical impairment.
The court also accepted evidence that the security officers themselves had assaulted Bebe before the students joined in.
Importantly, the court found that the danger posed by the students was foreseeable. Once it became apparent that the guards could no longer control the situation, a reasonable security officer should have removed the handcuffs, giving Bebe at least an opportunity to escape or defend himself.
The court described the failure to do so as grossly negligent.
Xhobani Security Services was held liable for Bebe’s damages, which are still to be proved or agreed.
Why does this matter to the security industry?
The judgment highlights something easily overlooked.
Security officers are employed to intervene but intervention can also create responsibility.
Once an officer apprehends or restrains someone, the decisions made from that point can become just as important as the original reason for intervening.
Was the action justified? Was the force reasonable? Was the person protected once restrained? Did the officers respond appropriately as the situation changed?
These may begin as operational decisions. After an incident, they can quickly become legal and insurance issues.
And, as Bebe demonstrates, the financial consequences can potentially be substantial where an incident results in catastrophic bodily injury.
Is ordinary public liability insurance enough?
For security companies, this reinforces the importance of looking beyond simply having a public liability policy.
A modern security operation can face allegations involving assault, wrongful arrest or detention, defamation, negligent security services and firearm-related incidents.
The question is therefore not simply: “Do we have liability insurance?” It should be: “Does our insurance cover what our people actually do?”
The answer depends on the policy wording, the activities of the business, the exclusions and conditions, and the limits selected.
A certificate showing a substantial liability limit means little if the circumstances giving rise to a claim fall outside the cover.
Clients should ask the same question
Businesses, estates and other organisations appointing security providers should be asking similar questions.
Obtaining proof of liability insurance is sensible, but checking that the cover is appropriate for the services being provided is equally important.
The security service being provided, the contractual responsibilities assumed and the insurance protecting those responsibilities should align.
The Bebe judgment does not suggest that security officers should avoid intervening. Intervention is often exactly what they are employed to do.
It does demonstrate that what happens after an intervention can be as important as the decision to intervene in the first place.
For security companies, that makes training, procedures, supervision and appropriate insurance part of the same risk-management discussion.
And for their clients, it raises a simple but important question:
When your security provider says it is insured, do you know what it is actually insured for?
Reference: Bebe v Xhobani Security Services (2210/2015) [2026] ZAECMHC 39 (9 June 2026), Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha.
