The Johannesburg high court has dismissed an urgent application by a Roodepoort man seeking the return of his dog from the SPCA, finding that he had voluntarily surrendered the animal when inspectors removed it for treatment.
In a judgment handed down on Thursday, the court ruled that John Michael Letang could not rely on the legal remedy of spoliation to get his dog back because he had consented to the SPCA taking the dog, Bitsy, after it was found by the SPCA in a serious condition earlier this month.
Bitsy was discovered on January 2 trapped in a drain on Letang’s property while the owner was away on holiday in Durban. The court heard that the dog, which suffers from arthritis, was:
- severely dehydrated;
- starving;
- infested with ticks and fleas;
- suffering from flystrike in one ear; and
- required urgent veterinary care.
SPCA cadet inspector Eugene Haricharan contacted Letang by phone to explain the situation. Letang said he was unable to provide the treatment needed and agreed that the SPCA should take the dog. He confirmed this in a WhatsApp message, and Letang’s daughter, who was on the property, signed a form indicating that ownership rights were being relinquished.
Shortly afterwards, Letang sent another message saying the dog was being surrendered for treatment and asking to be told when Bitsy would be ready for collection. When the SPCA did not respond, his attorneys wrote on January 7 demanding the dog’s return.
The SPCA refused, saying Bitsy had been surrendered after being rescued from neglect.
The only question is whether, at the point Mr Haricharan took control of Bitsy, he did so with Letang’s consent. Clearly he did
— Judge Stuart Wilson
Letang then approached the high court on an urgent basis, arguing that the SPCA had unlawfully taken possession of the dog.
Judge Stuart Wilson rejected the claim, holding that the decisive issue was consent at the time the SPCA removed the animal. “The only question is whether, at the point Mr Haricharan took control of Bitsy, he did so with Letang’s consent. Clearly he did,” he said.
The judge said any dispute about whether the surrender permanently transferred rights over the dog would have to be dealt with in separate proceedings and could not be determined in the spoliation application before him. He dismissed Letang’s application with costs.
Festive season risk
The National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA) communications lead Samanta Stelli said the NSPCA and SPCA movement generally experienced an increase in animal welfare concerns during the festive season. She said this period often coincided with:
- increased travel;
- reduced supervision of animals; and
- heightened risks linked to celebrations, particularly fireworks.
“While not all matters involve deliberate neglect, SPCAs frequently respond to cases where animals are left without adequate care, food, water, shelter or protection from distress,” Stelli said.
While the NSPCA does not centrally collect or maintain national statistics relating specifically to neglected or surrendered dogs, operational experience across the SPCA movement consistently indicates a seasonal increase in animal welfare complaints during holiday periods, she said.
Removal is done in accordance with legal procedures, often under warrant, and is clearly communicated to the owner by SPCA inspectors, who explain the legal basis for the intervention and the steps that will follow.
— Samanta Stelli, NSPCA communications lead
During the festive season, Stelli said SPCAs commonly respond to animals:
- left unattended for extended periods without adequate food or water;
- with inadequate shelter, particularly during extreme heat or storms; and
- exposed to severe fear and distress caused by fireworks.
Injuries sustained when frightened animals attempt to escape loud noises include:
- lacerations;
- puncture wounds;
- fractures; and
- road traffic injuries.
“Fireworks are a significant contributor to distress as the loud, unpredictable noises and flashes can cause animals to panic, flee their homes and become lost or seriously injured.”
Legal powers of SPCA
SPCA inspectors are legally empowered under the the Animals Protection Act to investigate allegations of animal cruelty and neglect, she said.
“Where necessary, inspectors may obtain warrants to enter premises, remove animals in distress and initiate criminal proceedings against offenders. If a person is convicted of animal cruelty, penalties may include a fine of up to R60,000 and/or imprisonment of up to three years.”
According to Stelli, animals may be removed from an owner’s care when:
- they are found to be suffering, neglected, or subjected to cruelty; and
- leaving them in the owner’s custody would place their welfare at continued risk.
“Removal is done in accordance with legal procedures, often under warrant, and is clearly communicated to the owner by SPCA inspectors, who explain the legal basis for the intervention and the steps that will follow.”
She said the primary consideration in all such cases was the animal’s welfare and best interests.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.