Teeth were bared in the Bloemfontein high court when two women, reportedly once good friends, embarked on a legal “dog fight” over who owns a pedigreed German Shepherd.
The dog, with the “impressive name” Vasti von Bergheim, was a two-month-old pup when her registered owner, dog breeder Johanna “Barbie” Visser, handed her over to Johanna le Roux in March 2018.
Le Roux, who lodged the court action, which was heard before judge Johann Daffue, said there was an agreement that she would raise, house, feed and train Vasti for dog shows.
When Vasti turned two, she would be bred, at which time she would become her legal owner, on condition Visser received two puppies from the first litter.
In September last year, Visser had taken the dog and not returned it.
In her claim, Le Roux said she wanted the immediate return of Vasti or compensation of R56,000, being the loss she suffered as a result of her training, feeding and housing the animal for 18 months.
But Visser, who opposed the application, said she owed Le Roux nothing.
She said she and her husband run a registered kennel and she is the registered owner of Vasti.
She said when Le Roux’s dog drowned in December 2017, she offered to lend her Vasti for security, subject to her agreeing to care for her at her own costs and for the dog to be trained.
Le Roux said it was also verbally agreed that she could enrol Vasti for dog shows and that Vasti would be returned to her once she was two “or on demand”.
Le Roux said she collected Vasti in September to take her to the vet and discovered the dog had not received her vaccinations while under Visser’s watch.
She then decided to keep the dog.
Judge Daffue labelled legal toing and froing, from when the application was first launched in January this year until it was heard last month, as “shenanigans”.
He said, first, the litigation did not belong in the high court but in the magistrate’s court, where disputes involving amounts less than R200,000 were heard.
“There is no allegation that the value of Vasti is in excess of R200,000,” he said. “I seriously considered striking the matter from the roll. A simple application got out of hand and both parties are blamed for proceeding with the matter in the way they did.”
Second, he pointed out, there were serious disputes of fact which could not be resolved through affidavits and argument, and if the parties were intent on continuing with court action oral evidence would be needed.
While Le Roux’s advocate submitted that the court should find in her favour “based on the probabilities” that there was a verbal agreement between the two former friends, the judge said he could not rule out Visser’s version as being far-fetched, implausible or false.
“Although I find it difficult to believe that a two-month-old pup could make any contribution to the safety requirements of Le Roux, I accept that Vasti could be trained to be an effective watchdog.
“And I cannot reject her version that she was prepared, after the drowning incident, to lend Vasti to Le Roux until it was time to breed her.
“It was Visser and her husband who, at their own expense, took Vasti to two dog shows and to the vet for hip testing. They would not have done so if they were intent on relinquishing ownership,” he said, dismissing the application.