Authored By: Sebonaboni
University of Johannesburg
INTRODUCTION
A day we never thought could arrive as a nation, humans are being mauled to death by pets in their own households. A call for the ban of pit bulls was recently protested after the attack of a defenseless domestic worker in Kriston Park. Pit bulls were imported in South Africa from the 1970’s where they were further bred as guard dogs, pets and illegal dog fighting rings. It has been brought to South Africa’s attention that a series of deadly cases has been reported and arose in the previous year 2022 by 22.5%. In this article we will find out whether the current South African legal framework provide sufficient civil and criminal remedies for victims of fatal pit bull attacks, or is legislative reform necessary. This research examines whether South African law adequately holds dog owners strictly liable under the actio de pauperie for fatal pit bull attacks, and whether stricter regulation or prohibition is legally justified in light of rising incidents.
The increasing number of fatal attacks has created fear and uncertainty within communities, particularly among workers who enter private households as part of their employment. These incidents have also sparked national debate regarding responsible pet ownership and the extent of legal accountability imposed on animal owners. While some argue that aggressive behaviour is a result of poor training and negligence rather than breed characteristics, others maintain that certain breeds pose a heightened risk to public safety. The tension between animal ownership rights and the protection of human life raises complex legal and policy considerations. It therefore becomes necessary to assess whether existing common law and statutory mechanisms are effectively enforced and whether they provide adequate deterrence against preventable harm.
BODY
Mlungisi Nkentshisa and the Pit Bull Attack in Kriston Park
Following the media report of a 45 year old gardener Mlungisi Nkentshisa, who was viciously mauled to death by 3 (Three) pit bulls at his workplace in Kriston Park on the 14th of February 2022. This incident occurred just before the nation celebrated Human Rights Day, how devastating. The employees provided a statement that the late employee provoked their dogs but failed to provide legible footage evidence. According to Mlungisi’s family, it is alleged that the dogs were not on a leash which made it easy to attack him. More on the matter is that Mlungisi’s mother stated that the owners offered her five thousand rands after five years of his son’s dedication to his work. The mother opened a case to the police station, unfortunately no updates and arrests have been made on the matter. We should remember that as a nation we lost one of our citizens but to the mother, she lost a son and most importantly her breadwinner. We all have a right to life but Mlungisi’s right was never protected in the first place. The country is getting divided among owners who say pit bulls are excellent pets while other have lost their loved ones through their attacks. This is one of the cases which puts great pressure on the reduction of our population. The Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962 (APA), intends to consolidate and amend laws relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals. The Act allows a legal adaptation of pets in households granting all of this under the captivity of Humans. In the Animals Matter Amendment Act 42 of 1993 (AMAA), a negligent owner who’s animal injures another person stands to be guilty on a conviction of imprisonment of a fine.
I view the system to have proven a weak legislation as no arrests have been made to the negligent employers. It is limiting not only our rights but domestic worker’s rights to security furthermore allowing dangerous animals to live in the same environment as humans. The owners should have been the first ones to stop the pit bulls before the police or animal control from mauling the poor man any further, since they were present during the attack. They consented to take responsibility of the animals immediately when adopting them. Kriston Park will no longer be considered a safe working environment especially for domestic workers.
The Application of the Actio de Pauperie and Strict Liability in the Cloete v Van Meyeren
The Cloete case directly supports the argument for strict liability, which means a dog owner can be held responsible even if they are not negligent. The court confirmed that the actio de pauperie (strict liability) allows a victim to succeed even if the owner took precautions. The defendant argued he was not liable because an intruder broke his locked gate, allowing the dogs to escape. The court rejected this defense, ruling that the owner remains liable for damages caused by their animals acting against their nature, regardless of a third party’s interference unless that third party was in actual control of the dogs. This supports Mlungisi’s family’s claim because even if his employers argue they were not negligent or that Mlungisi provoked the dogs as alleged, the precedent in Cloete suggests that as owners, they are strictly liable for the fatal attack.
Justification for Compensation to Families
In the Cloete case, the plaintiff sued for over R2.3 million in damages following an attack that resulted in the amputation of his arm. The court granted judgment in his favour for his proven damages. Since Mlungisi’s mother was reportedly offered only R5,000 by the employers after her son’s death, the Cloete precedent supports the argument that the family of a breadwinner like Mlungisi is legally entitled to substantial, court-mandated compensation for their loss, far exceeding informal offers. While civil laws like actio de pauperie are functional, criminal and breed-specific laws might be failing to protect citizens. Since every citizen has a Right to Life in section 11 and right to be free from violence in section 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, the fact that workers like Mlungisi are mauled to death in their workplaces suggests that current laws, such as the Animals Protection Act 72 of 1962, are not strong enough to ensure these constitutional rights are protected from private sources of violence like vicious pets. Using Cloete, is a way to demonstrate that South African law already recognises the extreme danger posed by these animals through strict civil liability, and that this same standard should be reinforced through stronger criminal consequences and mandatory compensation for grieving families.
Comparative Analysis: City of Cape Town v Carelse and the Mlungisi Nketshisa Case
The comparison between the City of Cape Town v Carelse case and the matter of Mlungisi reveals a stark contrast between legal accountability in public spaces versus private workplaces. While the legal principles of the former support the latter, the outcomes for the victims vary significantly. Case Carelse and the Mlungisi’s matter share several similarities regarding the nature of the incidents. Both involved vicious pit bull attacks on individuals who were lawfully present at the location. In the Carelse case, the victim was a visitor at a public resort, while Mlungisi was a gardener performing his duties at his workplace. Furthermore, both cases involve a failure to implement adequate safety measures; in Carelse, the city failed to secure a free entry point in a fence, and in Mlungisi’s case, it is alleged the dogs were not on a leash.
The primary differences lie in the severity of the outcomes and the level of legal accountability. Fatiema Carelse survived her attack with serious physical injuries and PTSD, leading to a successful claim for proven damages against both the city and the dog owner. Conversely, Mlungisi was mauled to death, yet his family was offered an informal settlement of only R5,000. Most notably, while the courts held the authorities and owners liable in Carelse, there have been no arrests or updates in the criminal case regarding Mlungisi’s death, despite a case being opened with the police.
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in Carelse affirmed that a failure to act is wrongful if there is a legal duty to ensure safety. Just as the City had a duty to protect resort visitors, employers have a duty to provide a safe working environment for domestic workers. The court further held that the dog owner in Carelse liable based on the actio de pauperie, a principle that imposes strict liability on owners for damages caused by their animals acting against their nature. This supports the argument that Mlungisi’s employers should be held liable for his death regardless of whether they intended for the attack to happen. The court noted that because the city knew dogs were a problem, an attack was a foreseeable possibility. Similarly, because pit bull attacks in South Africa rose by 22.5% in 2022, owners should reasonably foresee the danger their pets pose to employees on their property.
Strengthening Enforcement of the Animal Matters Amendment Act
Strict Enforcement of the Animal Matters Amendment Act. The AMAA already specifies that an owner whose negligence leads to an injury is liable for a fine or imprisonment for up to two years. Consistent arrests and prosecutions in cases like Mlungisi’s are necessary to move away from what is currently viewed as weak legislation. Under Section 1(2) of the AMAA, courts have the power to declare a person unfit to own a specific breed for a set period. This should be used more aggressively to prevent repeated incidents by negligent owners. The Animals Protection Act (APA) allows the Minister to create regulations regarding the confinement and accommodation of animals. Mandatory, high-security enclosures for vicious breeds could prevent animals from reaching workers or the public. There are calls to ban pit bulls as household pets and instead utilise them in controlled environments such as military operations or K9 divisions where their qualities are better accommodated.
I crucially support the ban of pit bulls as pets in households. I suggest they should be kept in a field that matches and accommodates their qualities such as military operations. I also suggest that the remaining pit bull owners surrender their dogs to the police station department to be utilised in the K9 division. In addition, I believe that stricter monitoring and registration of all existing pit bulls is necessary to prevent future attacks. Households should not be exposed to the risk of these animals, as their strength and aggression cannot always be adequately controlled in a domestic setting. I also advocate for public education campaigns to raise awareness about the dangers of keeping aggressive breeds as pets and to promote responsible pet ownership in general. Moreover, I think the state should consider offering support to affected families of attacks to ensure justice and compensation, highlighting the need for both preventative and remedial measures. By implementing these measures, the balance between human safety and the ethical treatment of animals can be better achieved, ensuring that pit bulls serve productive roles in controlled environments rather than posing a threat in homes.
CONCLUSION
We are supposed to be a nation of societal safety, especially in households. We cannot become a strong country to overcome international disruptions like terrorism if our law fails to protect us from within the country first. We already lost infants, minors and adults through these attacks, we cannot allow more blood to flow. Protecting domestic workers requires the active enforcement of the South African Constitution:
Freedom from Private Violence: Section 12(1)(c) of the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to be free from all forms of violence from either public or private sources. Employers who allow dangerous animals to roam unsecured are failing to uphold this constitutional right. Right to Life and Dignity: Every citizen, including workers, has the right to life and inherent dignity. Labour Rights and Safe Environments: Section 23(1) grants everyone the right to fair labour practices. This must be interpreted to mean that a household containing vicious animals is not a safe working environment, and workers should have direct, state-supported recourse to refuse work in such conditions.
If we fail to enforce these constitutional protections and allow negligence to go unchecked, we are sending a dangerous message: that some lives are less valued than others, and that laws exist in theory but not in practice. The question we must ask ourselves as a society is not only how we punish wrongdoing after tragedy occurs, but how we prevent it in the first place.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Websites and Blogs
Tshegofatso Magoleng from Cutting Edge SABC News 2022.
Masoka Dube, “Pit bull attacks reignite public anger” (The Citizen, 16 January 2026) Pit bull attacks reignite public anger | The Citizen
CASE LAW
City of Cape Town v Carelse and others [2020] JOL 48650 (SCA)
Cloete v Van Meyeren [2019] 1 All SA 662 (ECP)
LEGISLATIONS
The Constitution of The Republic of South Africa, 1996
The Protection Act 71 of 1962
The Animals Matters Amendment Act 42 of 1993
