- Nuisance law protects neighbours from excessive noise, but tolerable barking isn’t unlawful.
- CSOS dismisses case despite years of complaints, saying noise did not breach legal threshold.
- Adjudicator urges neighbours to show give and take, and continue managing dogs reasonably
How much barking is too much? For many South Africans living in sectional title units, estates, or suburban homes, the sound of dogs barking next door can fray nerves and disrupt daily life. But does it amount to a legal nuisance?
A recent ruling by the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) sheds light on how barking dog disputes are handled under South African law and what residents must prove to succeed in formal complaints.
What the law says about barking dogs
Under South African neighbour law and the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) Act, a noise nuisance is defined as an unlawful interference with a person’s ordinary use and enjoyment of their property. However, not all noise will meet this legal standard. When it comes to barking dogs, the law requires that the barking must be excessive in volume or frequency, persist over a significant period, and reach a level that would be considered intolerable by a reasonable person.
This means that occasional barking, or barking that is merely annoying or inconvenient, is not enough to establish a legal nuisance. The disruption must be serious and sustained, to the extent that it interferes with how a neighbour lives, works, or rests in their own home. Importantly, the law does not expect silence. It expects reasonableness.
In determining whether barking qualifies as a nuisance, decision-makers will consider the overall context. This includes the time of day the barking occurs, how long it continues, whether the dog owner has taken any steps to address the issue, and how a reasonable neighbour would react in the same circumstances.
The Meyersdal barking dog dispute
This legal test was central in a CSOS ruling in the case of Bhana v Lazanakis, a dispute between two families in Meyersdal Ridge Estate, Johannesburg.
Hemant and Urvashi Bhana, residents of Unit 5, asked CSOS to issue an order forcing their neighbours in Unit 36 to permanently remove two dogs that had, according to them, barked incessantly for over a year. They provided evidence including audio recordings, written complaints, and records of warnings issued by the homeowners’ association.
But CSOS adjudicator Karen Bleijs found that the Bhanas had not met the legal threshold for proving a barking dog nuisance. She acknowledged the dogs did cause some noise disturbance, particularly before mid-2023, but noted a marked improvement after the owners took corrective action such as using bark collars, hiring a domestic worker to supervise the dogs, and keeping them indoors when away.
“No complaints have been lodged with the portfolio manager since July 2023,” Bleijs noted. “The nuisance has abated, and the dogs are no longer a persistent, ongoing source of disruption.”
A question of law, not emotion
The ruling also highlights how personal tension between neighbours can complicate dispute resolution. Bleijs referred to the dogs as “secondary pawns in a vitriolic war” between parties who no longer greet or communicate.
Still, CSOS’s mandate is to apply the law objectively, not to resolve personality clashes.
“In a community scheme, residents must accept a degree of disturbance and inconvenience,” the adjudicator said. “This includes occasional barking, provided it does not rise to the level of excess.”
The application was dismissed under section 53(1)(a) of the CSOS Act as being “misconceived,” and no costs were awarded. The Bhanas may appeal to the High Court, but only on a point of law.
Lessons for dog owners and neighbours
This case shows that barking alone won't lead to a legal remedy unless it’s unreasonable in both degree and duration. It also underlines the importance of documenting the frequency and times of barking, showing that all other avenues to resolve the matter have failed, and proving that the interference is ongoing and intolerable.
For dog owners, it’s a reminder to take complaints seriously and to keep records of the steps taken to address them. Still, CSOS’s mandate is to apply the law objectively, not to resolve personality clashes.
“In a community scheme, residents must accept a degree of disturbance and inconvenience,” the adjudicator said. “This includes occasional barking, provided it does not rise to the level of excess.”
The application was dismissed under section 53(1)(a) of the CSOS Act as being “misconceived,” and no costs were awarded. The Bhanas may appeal to the High Court, but only on a point of law.
Conviction.co.za
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
