{"issue_text":"Whether the loss of gold bullion was caused by vis major","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Armed robbery occurred, defendant's security measures were overwhelmed"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the defendant breached its obligations to the plaintiff","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Defendant failed to deliver the bullion, strict liability as public carrier"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the defendant was negligent in discharging its duties","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Alleged inadequate security, failure to use communication devices"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the defendant is liable to pay US$675,000 to the plaintiff","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Loss of bullion, defendant's strict liability"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the plaintiff is liable to pay US$54,617.18 to the defendant","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Outstanding service fees, currency of payment"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
Plaintiff engaged defendant, a security company, to transport 11.95kg of gold bullion worth US$675,000 from How Mine to Bulawayo. During transit, the convoy was ambushed by armed robbers who stole the bullion. Plaintiff sued for the loss, claiming defendant was strictly liable as a public carrier or alternatively negligent. Defendant denied liability, pleading vis major (superior force) and counterclaimed for outstanding service fees.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases