Senior Inspector Wayne Hector approached the Goodwood Magistrates court earlier today for an order that authorised him to enter a property in Richwood. The SPCA received a complaint towards the end of February 2022 about dogs kept in dirty and parasitic conditions at a residential property. The report also stated that a hoarding situation is evident at the property.
Cadet Inspector Lee Prins was initially denied access to the property on two separate occasions. The owner refused to allow the SPCA onto the property and demanded that we get a court order. In terms of Section 8(1)(a) of the Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962, our Inspectors have the right to obtain a court order to search the property should they be denied access by the owner or occupier. Three dogs, two adult cats as well as three kittens were removed from the property due to the poor living environment.
Help keep our inspectors on the road
Senior Inspector Hector in his statement detailed “ This leaves me with no other option but to approach this honourable court for an order in terms of Section 8(1)(a) of the Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962, read together with Regulation 468, to enter the property to examine the conditions under which the animals are so kept and to seize them if it is reasonably necessary to prevent cruelty or suffering of such animals. I have reason to believe that one or more offences listed in Section 2 of the Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962 have been or are being committed for the following reasons:
The dogs are being kept in conditions that do not afford adequate space to move around freely. The dogs’ freedom of movement is limited. I am of the reasonable view that this is an offence in terms of Section 2(1)(b) of the Animals Protection Act No 71 of 1962 and that the dogs may be suffering unnecessarily as a result.
The dogs are being kept in dirty and parasitic conditions. I am of the reasonable view that this is an offence in terms of Section 2(1)(e) of the Animals Protection Act No 71 of 1962 and that the dogs may be suffering unnecessarily as a result.”
The action followed after it became evident that the owner would not allow access to the property and refused to comply. The owner responded to the notice by calling the Cape of Good Hope SPCA office in response to the Notice to Comply issued by Prins. He did not identify himself but claimed he was the owner of the property and the dogs. He informed the officer that he would not be allowing anyone from the SPCA onto his property to conduct an inspection and that we must obtain a court order. He claimed his dogs are well looked after and all their needs are met. He also informed our office that he is sick of the “Karen’s” complaining about his animals. He also demanded to know who the complainant was.
The SPCA is governed by an Act of parliament, namely the Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 169 of 1993. The SPCA’s objectives in terms of this Act is to prevent the ill-treatment of animals by promoting their good treatment by man, to promote the interests of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and to take cognisance of the application of laws affecting animals and Societies and to make representations in connection thereto with the appropriate authority.
