Vicious dogs can be impounded, court rules

Theewaterskloof Municipality has won on appeal to impound three dogs that attacked visitors on private property in Caledon. Illustration: Lisa Nelson

• The Western Cape High Court has ordered that the Theewaterskloof Municipality may impound three dogs for evaluation and potentially put them down if found to be irredeemably dangerous.
• The dogs had attacked an SPCA inspector, a client and a building contractor on their owner’s property, causing serious injuries that required hospitalisation.
• Owner Romanda Marais claimed the attacks were provoked and that her dogs were not dangerous, but the court found them to be a “public nuisance”.

The right to keep vicious dogs on your private property has come under scrutiny in a recent court ruling, which found three dogs to be a “danger to the general public and a public nuisance” after they attacked three people who had permission to be on the property.

The Theewaterskloof Municipality in the Overberg region had initially approached the Western Cape High Court for an order directing the owner of the dogs, Romanda Marais, of Caledon, to hand them over to a local pound for “evaluation”, to determine if they were a threat to public safety.

The municipality wanted an order that the owner pay R5,000 for the evaluation. If it was found that they were dangerous and had no prospects of rehabilitation, then they could be put down.

But the court dismissed the application.

The municipality, with the leave of the Supreme Court of Appeal, then launched an appeal against the ruling, which was heard by a full bench – three judges – of the Western Cape division.

Judges Daniel Thulare, Judith Cloete and acting Judge Zuko Mapoma found in favour of the municipality, ordering that the dogs be impounded for evaluation.

Judge Thulare, who penned the ruling, said Marais, a nail technician who ran her business from home, had three dogs, two pit bull terriers and a mixed breed, called Pirelli, Bud Light and Knight.

Marais had contended that, on a proper interpretation of the impoundment bylaws, her dogs could only be detained or impounded if the biting and attack incidents occurred while they were unattended on the streets or had “strayed’ and not if they had occurred on her property.

She also claimed that the victims were bitten as a result of provocation, teasing or harassment.

The municipality, however, said it had a constitutional duty to ensure the safety of all people.

Describing the incidents, Judge Thulare said that in November 2023, Lizaan Brandt, a member of the Caledon Animal Care and a registered SPCA inspector, had visited Marais’ property to pick up a cat for weekend foster care as had been arranged.

She had previously visited the property and had seen the dogs barking aggressively behind a fence.

This time, they were not secured. Marais had unlocked the security gate, and they attacked her, biting her on her shoulders, arms, elbows, calf and shin.

Brandt reported that she feared for her life, and the dogs did not respond to Marais’ yelling.

In January 2024, Christi De Villiers, a client of Marais, was also attacked. It was alleged that Marais released the dogs into the front garden and into the wendy house where Marais ran her business.

De Villiers was bitten on her arms, leg and buttocks and was hospitalised for five days.

In March that year, Victor Engelke, a building contractor hired by Marais to do some painting on the property, was also attacked and bitten on his legs, wrists, forearms and calf.

He was aware that the dogs were vicious and said he had arranged with Marais for them to be locked away in the house.

The municipality took action after the first attack. Marais assured a law enforcement officer that the dogs were not dangerous and that the attack on Brandt had been because they were provoked.

Marais was fined R1,000. She was again fined R1,000 after the second attack on De Villiers.

Finally, in March 2024, senior inspector Marius Hendriks served a compliance notice on Marais, entitling him to remove the dogs for evaluation. But Marais said they were at the kennels. Hendriks visited the kennels but was told by the owner that he was not authorised to release them.

Judge Thulare said Marais disputed that the dogs were dangerous and had engaged the services of an animal behaviourist who did not find any sign of “aggressive behaviour”. Marais claimed one of the dogs had merely jumped on Brandt “in an attempt to greet her” and that Brandt had provoked them by “running and screaming”.

Regarding the De Villiers incident, she said one of the dogs had placed its paw on her knee, and De Villiers had also reacted badly, provoking the attack.

Marais denied that she had agreed to lock the dogs away before Engelke and his workers arrived at the house. He was supposed to knock on the kitchen window to warn her of his presence, which he did not.

The dogs had bitten him “to ward off perceived danger as any animal would”.

Marais had put them in kennels to avoid them being taken to the pound.

Judge Thulare said it was clear from the complaints lodged by the victims that the dogs had become a “public nuisance” as defined in the bylaws.

He said on the undisputed facts, the three victims were on the premises for “legitimate reasons” and the photographs annexed to their affidavits showed the severity of the injuries, which were not as a result of being “nipped”.

“A victim nipped by dogs would not spend five days in hospital nursing injuries from dog bites,” he said.

He questioned the academic skills of the so-called dog behaviourist and also questioned why she had not dealt with the injuries sustained by the three victims.

Her report was “partisan”, he said.

“Private wealth cannot be used to buy one’s way out of the constitutional obligations of a municipality.”

He said the municipality had followed the required steps in terms of its Nuisances Resulting from the Keeping of Animals By-Law 2015.

The court upheld the appeal. It directed Marais to deliver the three dogs to the municipal pound for evaluation and to comply with all lawful instructions.

The order authorised the municipality to impound the dogs if Marais failed to comply and to process them in accordance with the law.

Marais was ordered to pay the costs of the application.

Support independent journalism
Donate using Payfast