The court held that as an appeal court, it is
required to appraise the evidence and reach an
independent conclusion. That the guards owed

the duty of care to the respondent and the same
was breached hence negligence. That the
guards having failed in their duty and the
respondent having direct control of the guards
makes them vicariously liable since they failed
in their ordinary course of employment. That
the judge didn’t award any special damages but
a contractual sum. That the rule is that special
damages must be specifically and proved. That
the general principle underlying the award of
general damages is that the claimant is entitled
to full compensation for his losses. That
general damages compensate the claimant for
the non-monetary aspects of the specific harm
suffered.