Pretoria - Cats versus dogs in complexes turned into a legal wrangling before the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, with the owner of a cat who is adamant that it is unfair discrimination to rule that residents may keep dogs, but that cats are banned.
There is discontent among the residents of Ireland Gardens in Centurion, who feel that cats pose a nuisance as they cannot be contained.
They sleep on the beds of neighbours and urinate inside the units.
Cats were a decade ago welcome in Ireland Gardens, but no longer.
Cat lover Izaak van Niekerk, owner of one of the units, apparently secretly got himself another cat after his two cats had died. The cat was spotted by one of the residents running into his garden and he was reported.
Van Niekerk asked the body corporate to amend its rules regarding cats, but it refused.
He then took the matter up with the adjudicator of community schemes, who acted as an ombud to resolve the dispute.
The adjudicator ruled in Van Niekerk’s favour and found that what is good for the goose, is good for the gander. She concluded that homeowners should be treated equally and that dog lovers could not be favoured over cat lovers.
But Ireland Gardens Body Corporate would have none of this and it now turned to the court to have this ruling overturned.
Pieter de beer Venter, a member of the body corporate and resident, said in court papers prior to the adoption of rule 1.13, cats were permitted in the complex, subject to prior written approval from the trustees.
This was also the situation regarding any pets at the complex, whether it was birds, dogs, cats or reptiles. The rule stated that “approval may not be unreasonably withheld.”
Cats however, over the years became a big problem in the complex and they were regarded as a nuisance.
The trustees constantly received complaints from the residents regarding the cats.
In 2007 the trustees tried to find a solution and resolved that cats may not roam the complex and that owners had to ensure that the cats stayed inside their own gardens.
But the cat problem persisted and the residents kept on complaining.
“The complaints included cats entering other residents’ units either in search of food or a cosy bed. In one instance a cat entered a unit and slept on the bed on a child who is allergic to cat hair,” Venter said.
Other complaints included cats “marking” their territory in others’ homes by urinating. The unpleasant smell was difficult to get rid of.. Cats staining newly painted walls of the common property was also a problem, as the culprits could not be identified and the body corporate had to repaint it at their expense.
Fed-up with the situation, they resolved in 2009 that cats were no longer welcome.
Those who had cats at the time, were permitted to keep them, but not allowed to replace them after they had died.
Van Niekerk at the time had two cats, which he was allowed to keep but not replace.
All went well for some years and it seemed as if there were no more cats, until a resident spotted a cat running into Van Niekerk’s yard in 2017.
All hell broke loose and he was told several times to get rid of his cat.
Van Niekerk then asked for the rule to be amended during a special general meeting. The body corporate refused as it said the earlier complaints and problems will simply surface again.
He then turned to the adjudicator.
She ruled that the no cat rule was biased as cat owners were treated differently.
The court now ordered that the record of those proceeding should be placed before it.