Staff Reporter
A fight over the ownership of a dog ended up before the Free State High Court after two Bloemfontein women failed to resolve their dispute amicably.
Johanna Christina Le Roux approached the court seeking an order to have a German shepherd dog, named Vasti von Bergheim, returned to her by her former friend Johanna Francina Visser.
Alternatively, she asked to be paid R56 880 as compensation for the financial loss she claimed to have suffered as a result of her training, feeding and housing the dog for a period of 18 months.
Judge JP Daffue, however, dismissed the application with costs, noting it was “really not a dispute that necessitates the attention of the High Court”.
It all started back in March 2018 when Visser, who runs the Bloemfontein-based Bergheim German Shepherd Dog Breeders project with her husband, gave the dog in question as a puppy to Le Roux on certain conditions.
This arrangement came about after another dog which Le Roux had bought from Visser drowned in December 2017.
Visser offered to lend Vasti to Le Roux, subject to the latter’s obligation to raise, house, feed and train the German shepherd for dog shows at her own costs.
Visser and her husband were to be at liberty to enrol Vasti for dog shows during this time, while Vasti would be returned to Visser once eligible for breeding – at the age of two years – or on demand.
In her application, Le Roux claimed she was supposed to become the legal owner of Vasti once the dog had her first litter of puppies, on condition that Visser would receive two puppies from that first litter.
In September 2019, Vasti was collected from Le Roux’s premises in order for her hips to be tested – a requirement to breed with this type of dog – whereupon it was found that Vasti had not received her vaccinations while in Le Roux’s care.
After the veterinary inspection – which came after the German shepherd had also attended two dog shows in Port Elizabeth and Pretoria – Visser kept the dog in her custody and control.
And then the fight began!
Le Roux first filed her application to have the dog returned to her on December 10 2019.
She alleged Visser had breached their verbal agreement.
After Le Roux failed to prove the existence of such an agreement, the judge dismissed the application.
In his ruling handed down on July 30, Judge Daffue chided the parties for wasting the court’s precious time and resources.
“When I prepared for the hearing I seriously considered striking the matter from the roll as this is really not a dispute that necessitates the attention of the High Court,” he said.
“Both parties are blamed for proceeding with the matter in the manner in which they did.
“A simple application – a matter for the lower court – got out of hand as indicated earlier.
“Unnecessary costs have been incurred and the legal representatives and their clients should really reconsider their actions or inaction.”
