Court rejects man's attempt to reclaim dog found starving, infested with fleas in drain while he was on holiday

A HIGH court judge has dismissed a dog owner’s urgent application to reclaim his pet, who was found trapped in a drain, starving and infested with fleas and ticks, while he was on holiday in Durban.

The SPCA took possession of the neglected pet, after John Michael Letang surrendered the animal via WhatsApp message but later changed his mind. 

The dog named Bitsy was found trapped and in distress by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) in Roodepoort, Gauteng. 

Letang, brought an urgent application in the Johannesburg High Court against the SPCA and its cadet inspector, Eugene Haricharan, to have his dog returned to him. 

According to the court papers, Haricharan found a dog trapped at the bottom of a drain on a property in Roodepoort on January 2, this year. 

Both the property and Bitsy, belonged to Letang. 

According to the court papers, Letang had gone on holiday to Durban, leaving Bitsy on the property with a large quantity of food.

“At some point, Mr Haricharan said it must have been at least three days before he found Bitsy.  Bitsy fell down the drain and became trapped there. Because Bitsy, like many dogs of his age and size, suffers from arthritis, he did not have the strength to jump out of the drain,” it read. 

According to the court papers, By the time Haricharan found him, Bitsy was in a dreadful state. 

“Bitsy was starving, dehydrated, infested with ticks and fleas and suffering from flystrike in his ear. Flystrike is a particularly distressing condition that appears to involve the deterioration of tissue as a result of the gestation of larvae hatched from eggs planted underneath the skin. Bitsy needed urgent veterinary attention,” it read. 

According to the court papers, Haricharan managed to obtain Letang’s telephone number, and informed him of Bitsy’s state. 

However, Letang said that he was not in a position to provide Bitsy with the veterinary attention he needed. Haricharan then asked Letang if he wanted to surrender Bitsy to the SPCA. Letang agreed. 

According to the court papers, Letang sent a WhatsApp message to Haricharan stating, “I John Michael Letang do hereby surrender Bitsy to SPCA roodepoort... thank you".

In addition, Letang’s daughter, who was present or arrived at the property during Haricharan’s visit, also signed a form indicating that all “ownership rights” over Bitsy were being relinquished.

According to the court papers, just under an hour after “surrendering” Bitsy to the SPCA, Letang contacted Haricharan again, stating, “Hi Eugene, kindly note that Bitsy is being surrendered to SPCA Roodepoort for treatment and please inform us when Bitsy is ready for collection thank you”. Haricharan did not reply. 

The next day, Letang sent another message, “Hi Eugene, any news on Bitsy please. We are concerned”. There was no reply to this message on record either.

According to the court papers, by January 7, it had dawned on Letang that the SPCA had no intention of returning Bitsy to him. On the same day, Letang’s legal representatives sent a letter to the SPCA demanding Bitsy’s return.

However the SPCA responded that Bitsy would not be returned to Letang, and was now the property of the SPCA.

In their replying letter the SPCA said the reasons being Bitsy was rescued from Letang’s neglect, and then surrendered due to Letang not being able to provide the care and treatment needed.

According to the court papers, an “aggrieved” Letang placed an urgent application before the high court for Bitsy’s return on January 27. 

In that application, Letang claimed that he had been spoliated, because the SPCA unlawfully dispossessed him of Bitsy when Haricharan took the dog away. 

In handing down judgment, Judge Stuart David James Wilson said at the outset of the hearing, he asked Ms Simelane, who appeared for Letang, whether the case could survive his admission that he surrendered Bitsy to Haricharan when he was invited to do so. 

“Ms Simelane argued that, even though Mr Letang had surrendered Bitsy, he meant neither to give up his ownership, nor to permanently give over possession of Bitsy to the SPCA. Ms Simelane adverted to Mr Letang’s message to Mr Haricharan, asking to be informed when Bitsy is ‘ready for collection’.

“But that submission missed the point. The question is not whether Bitsy’s surrender to the SPCA amounted to a waiver of ownership, or whether Mr Letang intended to place Bitsy permanently in the SPCA’s care. The only question is whether, at the point Mr Haricharan took control of Bitsy, he did so with Mr Letang’s consent. Clearly, he did,”  he said. 

Judge Wilson said the question of whether that consent permanently altered the rights that could be exercised over Bitsy was irrelevant to the spoliation proceedings. 

He said spoliation is only concerned with whether a transfer of possession took place lawfully. 

“Whether that transfer resulted in a right of retention or a change in ownership can be explored in separate proceedings. But once Mr Letang conceded, as he had to, that he voluntarily placed Bitsy with the SPCA, there could have been no question of the SPCA having unlawfully dispossessed him. 

“There may have been a basis for vindicatory relief, but that is not the application Mr Letang brought. For these reasons, the spoliation application must fail,” he said. 

Judge Wilson dismissed Letang’s application with costs.

The POST