- High Court overturns earlier ruling, granting Theewaterskloof Municipality authority to impound three dogs after multiple attacks left residents injured and fearful.
- Judge Thulare stresses that public safety outweighs individual claims of pet innocence, reinforcing municipalities’ powers under animal control and nuisance by-laws.
- The ruling sets a strong precedent, warning pet owners across South Africa that negligence and repeated violent incidents will not be tolerated in the name of community protection.
The High Court of South Africa in the Western Cape has upheld an appeal by the Theewaterskloof Municipality, authorising the impoundment of three dogs in Caledon after a string of violent attacks left victims bloodied, traumatised, and hospitalised.
Judge DM Thulare, with Judge J Cloete and Judge ZL Mapoma concurring, handed down the judgment on 19 August 2025, describing the repeated maulings as a grave public safety concern that could no longer be ignored.
The appeal was upheld with costs, to be paid by the dogs’ owner, Romanda Marais, on scale A. The ruling sets aside an earlier court decision that had dismissed the municipality’s urgent bid to remove the animals. In its place, the High Court ordered Marais to deliver the dogs, two Pit Bull Terriers named Pirelli and Bud Light, and a mixed breed called Knight, to the municipal pound at the corner of the R406 and N2 by 26 August 2025. If she fails to comply, the municipality is authorised to seize them without notice and process them in terms of the Impoundment of Animals By-Law.
A trail of blood and trauma
The case is steeped in painful accounts of ordinary residents whose encounters with the dogs turned into nightmares.
Lizaan Brandt, an animal welfare volunteer, was the first to be mauled in November 2023. What began as a routine visit to collect a foster cat ended with her fighting for her life as the dogs leapt on her, biting her shoulders, arms, legs, and back. “They wouldn’t stop,” she recalled in her testimony, describing how she fell downstairs as the dogs dragged and pulled at her. Terrified, she screamed for Marais, who admitted helplessly that her dogs “had never hurt anyone before.”
Two months later, Christi De Villiers, a client at Marais’s nail salon, suffered an even more brutal ordeal. As Marais opened a gate, the dogs charged into the salon and launched themselves at De Villiers, biting her arms, legs, and buttocks. She was left so badly injured that doctors admitted her to Hermanus Medi-Clinic for five days. For De Villiers, a casual appointment for nail treatment became a memory etched in fear and scars.
The third victim, Victor Engelke, a contractor, was attacked in March 2024 despite a prior agreement that the dogs would be locked away during his work hours. Assuming the property was safe, he entered the backyard only to be ambushed. The three dogs attacked in unison, biting his arms, wrists, legs, and calf. He escaped only by fighting them off and fleeing through a gate. Traumatised, Engelke abandoned the building project altogether.
These attacks painted a chilling picture: the dogs were not simply reacting to provocation, as their owner claimed, but had become a recurring danger to anyone who crossed their path.
The municipality’s fight for safety
Faced with mounting injuries and public concern, Theewaterskloof Municipality, under Municipal Manager Wilfred Schrevian Solomons-Johannes, launched an urgent application in 2024 to remove the dogs. Its argument was simple yet powerful: it had a constitutional duty to protect people within its jurisdiction, and these animals posed an unacceptable risk to safety.
The municipality relied on two by-laws: the Impoundment of Animals By-Law 2015 and the Nuisances Resulting from the Keeping of Animals By-Law 2015. It wanted the dogs impounded for veterinary evaluation to determine whether they could be rehabilitated or whether humane destruction was the only option. The evaluation would consider the dogs’ health, history of aggression, likelihood of rehabilitation, and overall risk to the community.
But the court of first instance dismissed the application, siding with Marais’s defence that the by-laws only applied when dogs were straying in public places, not when incidents occurred on private property. It was a technical reading of the law that left the municipality powerless to intervene even as attacks piled up.
Judge Thulare’s ruling
On appeal, Judge Thulare took a firmer stance. He rejected Marais’s reliance on narrow interpretations and claims of provocation. The judgment made clear that dangerous dogs do not stop being a public nuisance simply because they attack behind closed gates. Municipalities, the court held, have both the power and the obligation to act when animals threaten human life and safety.
“The repeated nature and severity of these attacks outweigh individual claims of safety,” Judge Thulare wrote, reinforcing that the municipality had acted within its rights. He set aside the earlier ruling and authorised the municipality to seize and impound the animals should Marais fail to hand them over.
The order carries a sting for the owner: not only must she surrender the dogs, but she must also bear the costs of the litigation, a financial and reputational blow that underscores the seriousness of her responsibility.
Owner’s defence falls flat
Marais fought hard to keep her dogs. She insisted the animals were provoked, describing one incident as a simple paw on a visitor’s shoulder mistaken for aggression. She also hired an animal behaviourist with 35 years’ experience, who found that the dogs did not exhibit aggressive tendencies during evaluation. She further argued that she had upgraded her property with kennels, reinforced gates, and signage to prevent further incidents.
But the court was unconvinced. It noted that no amount of infrastructure could erase the fact that three people had already suffered severe attacks, one requiring extended hospitalisation. The repeated fines, compliance notices, and broken promises to keep the dogs under control painted a picture of neglect rather than responsible ownership.
Wider implications
The ruling has implications far beyond Caledon. Across South Africa, municipalities have struggled with how to respond to dangerous dogs, particularly breeds like Pit Bulls that have been linked to fatal attacks. By clarifying that by-laws extend to attacks on private property, Judge Thulare has given municipalities a clearer legal framework to act decisively before tragedy strikes.
For victims like Brandt, De Villiers, and Engelke, the judgment provides some measure of justice after months of physical and emotional trauma. For communities across the country, it sets a precedent that prioritises human life and safety over technical defences and excuses.
As the deadline approaches for the dogs’ removal, the ruling stands as both a cautionary tale and a stern warning: pet ownership is not just a privilege but a responsibility, and when that responsibility is ignored, the law will step in.
Conviction.co.za
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
