It's a Dog's Life

Claimant Cornel Venter's day in court, fighting his former partner Pieter Kleyn for the return of a dog, got him nowhere.

Mr Venter told Commissioner Mr Neville Cohen that his dog had had a litter of five pups. He’d sold four and had given the fifth to Mr Kleyn as a gift – for as long as their relationship lasted.

In the event of a bust-up, as had happened, the dog had to be given back to Mr Venter.

Mr Kleyn denied the dog had been a present – he’d in fact paid Mr Venter R500 for the pup, but had no receipt to prove it.

He added: “I can’t understand on what basis he’s got a claim against me.”

Mr Venter responded: “The R500 he gave me was not for the pup, it was gambling money that he gave me under the table to play with – it had nothing to do with the dog."

Mr Kleyn countered: "He wanted R500 for the dog, but he owed me R300 so I gave him R200, and we were quits. Not another word was said about it for two years."

Mr Venter blurted: “He paid nothing for the pup – I want that dog back, or R1500.

Commissioner to Mr Venter: “He says he paid R500, not R1500.”

Mr Venter replied: “I said he could keep the pup – have it for nothing – so long as we keep seeing each other.”

Commissioner Cohen: “Then why does he say he paid R500?”

Mr Venter: "That was gambling money he gave me. At the time, we saw each other regularly, and I also wanted to see the dog.

“We knew each other for 10 years. Each time I caught him with someone else, and I demanded the dog back, he would get hysterical.

“Once, when I caught him with someone else, he got a Restraining Order against me. The R1500 is the emotional value of the dog.”

Mr Cohen asked: “If I bought one of the pups, how much would I pay for it?”

Mr Venter: “One of the pups was sold for R900.”

Mr Kleyn interrupted: “I beg your pardon, they were all were sold for R400.”

Mr Venter: “They go for anything from R700 to R900 to R1500.”

Mr Kleyn insisted: “Up to R900, if they are registered.”

Commissioner: “So you had a relationship, and he could keep the dog so long as the relationship continued?”

Mr Kleyn: “It had nothing to do with our relationship, it was a straight transaction in which I paid R500.”

Mr Cohen said the court had two different versions, and because he had no grounds to disbelieve either of them, he was unable to decide which way to rule.

This meant a ruling of “absolution from the Instance”.

Mr Cohen explained that absolution meant neither side had won. The benefit for Mr Venter was that the ruling left the door open for him to launch his claim a second time, if able to present more convincing proof that the transaction was a gift.

The benefit for Mr Kleyn, he said, was that the ruling absolved him from liability, until such time as Mr Venter was able to prove his claim.

An indignant Mr Venter protested: “What about the fact that the dog is still registered in my name – does that not indicate that it belonged to me, and that I had given it to him conditionally?”

The commissioner said it made no difference, but Mr Venter persisted: “It’s about getting the dog back.”

Mr Kleyn asked how to get the dog registered in his own name, believing that would stop Mr Venter in his tracks once and for all, but the Commissioner replied: “I don’t know what the procedures are now, you will just have to live with an unregistered dog – it’s a dog’s life.”