Key points
- Security firm evicted after court finds no valid contract.
- Police ordered to assist amid claims of armed intimidation.
- High Court slams unlawful occupation and grants interdict.
When Fidelity’s uniformed guards arrived to take up duty at Hertford Office Park in Sandton, they were blocked at the gate by men with automatic rifles and riot helmets. The men weren’t criminals, but they weren’t supposed to be there either.
This dramatic confrontation, reminiscent of a turf war, unfolded not in a crime series but in the corridors of commercial real estate, one of Gauteng’s prime business hubs. Behind the tension was a private security company, Visa Security Group (Pty) Ltd, that refused to vacate the premises after its services were discontinued. What followed was a legal battle that raises troubling questions about how private firms operate in the blurry space between contracts, coercion and impunity.
On 17 June 2025, the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria delivered a resounding rebuke. Acting Judge J Minnaar granted a final interdict against Visa Security, ordering the company and its personnel to leave the premises immediately and forbidding them from returning under any guise. The ruling made clear: Visa Security had no legal entitlement to be there, only the audacity to stay.
The shadow agreement that wasn’t
According to court papers, Visa Security had previously operated at the office park under what it claimed was a five-year agreement dating back to 2021. But there was a problem: no one could find the contract. Not a signed version. Not even a firm timeline. What existed was a string of emails, a draft service-level agreement never executed, and contradictory statements.
The property owners, Sable Place Properties, Redefine Properties and TADvest Commercial, insisted they never hired Visa directly. The office park’s facilities were being managed by Strive Real Estate (formerly Abreal), which had long moved on to a formal tender process. Visa submitted a bid in early 2025 and lost. The new contract was awarded to Fidelity Services Group, which was supposed to begin duties on 1 June 2025.
But Visa Security wouldn’t budge. They ignored written demands. They ignored lawyers’ letters. And when Fidelity personnel arrived to take over, they were blocked, physically.
When the law was silent
The most disturbing part of the saga? The police stood by. When Fidelity turned to the Midrand SAPS for assistance, officers reportedly refused to intervene. Despite allegations of firearms, intimidation and threats to safety, the matter was dismissed as a “civil dispute.”
Judge Minnaar, noting this in the ruling, expressed concern: “The refusal of the members of the second respondent [SAPS] to assist where there were allegations of firearms and hostility is a cause of concern.”
This vacuum of enforcement is what forced the property owners into urgent court. And once there, the facts became undeniable that Visa Security had no contract with the applicants, had failed to prove the existence of a tacit agreement, and was unlawfully occupying private property.
Court steps in belatedly, but decisively
The court found Visa Security’s version improbable and unconvincing. The alleged five-year agreement was not supported by any formal document or consistent testimony. Even Stallion Security Group, under whom Visa initially operated as a subcontractor, had confirmed the relationship ended in November 2024 and that Visa had no claim.
Not only was Visa unlawfully on site, but their presence actively obstructed the operations of the new service provider. Their refusal to leave was not a matter of misunderstanding. It was a form of occupation by force.
The court Visa and its personnel were interdicted from entering the premises, harassing employees, intimidating tenants, or interfering with Fidelity’s work. The SAPS was ordered to assist with complaints going forward.
The cost order? Scale C, the harshest available under the Uniform Rules of Court.
#Conviction
Got a news tip or facing something similar? Email us at news@conviction.co.za
