A legal battle over ownership of an African grey parrot played out in the Mpumalanga High Court in Mbombela where the matter was concluded without determining true ownership.

The contentious dispute involved Mfanawokulunga Orbet Ntuli and Crystle Pachos, both of whom vehemently claimed ownership of the bird.

The case involved a series of legal proceedings, beginning at the small claims court, followed by a hearing in the magistrate’s court and subsequently moving to the high court for an appeal.

According to a report by a local publication in Nelspruit, Lowvelder, the puzzling tale began as both parties reported the disappearance of their respective birds. Pachos’s African grey parrot, named Zazu, went missing in February 2020. Desperate to reunite with her pet, Pachos launched an extensive social media campaign to locate Zazu. Her efforts bore fruit in May 2021 when she was reunited with the bird, and she celebrated the news on Facebook.

Shortly after this notification, Ntuli, a lawyer by profession, announced that his own bird had gone missing. Pachos’s happiness was short-lived after Ntuli’s daughter sent her a WhatsApp message claiming that the bird was not Zazu, but their parrot named Zippy.

This reportedly led to an increasingly hostile exchange via WhatsApp, culminating in Ntuli’s decision to escalate the matter to the Small Claims Court. However, the court dismissed the case on the grounds that it was too complex for its jurisdiction.

Determined to claim what he believed was rightfully his, Ntuli then pursued the matter through the magistrate’s court. Before the hearing, Lowvelder added that the bird underwent a behavioural assessment intended to ascertain its rightful owner. The bird reportedly acted defensively towards Ntuli and more welcoming to Pachos. Despite this exercise, the vet concluded that it was not enough to determine ownership, leaving both parties still at an impasse.

According to court documents, when the case finally convened in the magistrate’s court in October 2024, Pachos failed to file her answering affidavit timeously. Her attempt to seek condonation for her tardiness was denied, allowing the case to proceed unopposed.

Ultimately, the magistrate ruled in favour of Ntuli, ordering Pachos to surrender Zazu. Pachos, feeling unjustly treated, filed a notice to appeal, but her plea was rejected due to lack of urgency, and she complied with the court order to hand over the parrot.

The matter eventually moved to the high court, where Deputy Judge President Judge Takalani Vincent Ratshibvumo presided over Pachos’s appeal. 

Judge Ratshibvumo found that the Magistrate overstepped its jurisdiction by ordering the return of the parrot to Ntuli. He said from the judgment, there’s an impression that because the application was unopposed, the Magistrate concluded that Ntuli was entitled to the relief sought, irrespective of jurisdictional limits.

The added that despite failing to determine the ownership, the magistrate ordered the return of the bird, and this shouldn’t have been the case because an order for return of movable property can be granted only when ownership has been established, which was not done.

“The Magistrate in this matter expressly stated that she lacked jurisdiction to determine the lawful owner of the bird. This finding should have disposed of the matter...The court erred in not engaging whether it had jurisdiction to hear an application for the return of property…On this aspect alone, the order granted by the court stands to be set aside.”

The judge also admonished the magistrate for refusing Pacho’s condonation application saying her reasoning lacked logic.

As a result, Pachos’s appeal was upheld with costs and the magistrate’s ruling was set aside with costs.

Pachos has been reunited with the bird.

sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za

IOL News

Get your news on the go. Download the latest IOL App for Android and IOS now.

Source link