I asked for consent all along which was denied on the basis that there was no provision for asking of permission in terms of the rule as amnended. It was brought to my attention that there had in fact been dogs on the premises all along though the dogs were already there prior to amendment of the rule.

If one has regard to a blanket prohibition on the keeping of any pets whatsoever, without provision for asking for consent, the element of “reasonbleness as which is required by The STA, provision for exceptional circumstances such as the need by an occupant/owner for a blind dog, and also leads to the inequitable scenario where for example where an owner or occupier may not keep pets such as an iguana, a hamste in a cage, a snake in a cage, or even a bird in a cage, as well as ”
fish in a fishtank or coy pond, none of which are capable of creating any nuisance to other occupiers or owners.

Whats even more remarkable is that the resonableness/lawfulness/constitutionality has never been tested in a court of law and there is simply no precedent as the closest case law is the DORSE matter where the rule was not a blanket prohibition but had provision for the asking of permission which the court found to have been unreasonably witheld and ruled in favour of the owner/occupier.

The lack of certainty surrounding this issue, I feel lays the foundation for unecessary friction betwen Trustees and owners/occupiers and there is presently only speculation and conjecture on the part of experts in this field. Seems Im set to be the test case.

In my case the BC represented by the self named top expert attorneys in this field charged me for failing to obtain the written permission of the Trustees ie charged me under the Rule prior to its amendment in 2004, plus lied to me as set out above about the presence of other pets in the complex, as I have been advised that even if pets had been around prior to amendment of the rule, the rule is still required to be applied “consistently” in terms of the STA, which would probably explain why they lied on record.

Below is a link to an article in Times Live yesterday about my High Court battle though it fails to deal with the legal side and fact that after having filed my answering affidavit and counterclaim I was met with utter silence by the usually vocal Body Corporate’s attorneys.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/entertainment/article789692.ece/Moggy-lover-all-set-to-take-cat-spat-to-court

Only time will tell but, the BC’S attorneys time period to file their answering affidavit to my counterclaim has long since expired and I will now be proceeding to enrol the matter for hearing notwithstanding that I am the Respondent in this matter.

When we asked the Body Corporate why we weren’t allowed large dogs, the reply was that they bark and roam around the property.

We have a fenced off garden, and our dog is a well behaved Retriever who doesn’t bark (unlike our neighbors small Jack Russel and Cocker Spaniel.) There are also other large dogs in the complex, which were around before the no large dogs rule.

Do you think we have a leg to stand on, is there a way to reason with Body Corporate, or do we give in and sell?