In the latest development in an escalating cat-and-dog fight, the Nelson Mandela Bay municipality has signalled it is going the legal route to evict the Uitenhage SPCA, but lawyers for the animal welfare organisation are having none of it.
Bay public health political head Thsonono Buyeye has indicated the intention to remove the organisation from the property it has occupied since 1959.
However, lawyers for the animal welfare organisation claim a verbal lease with the municipality is still in place.
The Uitenhage SPCA had held the contract for the management of the municipal pound since it was built almost 70 years ago, but since its contract with the municipality expired in October 2025 the pound has not been fully operational.
Buyeye said in an exclusive interview with The Herald on Thursday that the SPCA had been given until March 31 to vacate the premises.
“We have got to a stage now where we are going to start our own court proceedings against them and make sure that we evict them as soon as possible,” Buyeye said.
“They should have vacated at the end of March.
“But they are still on site, illegally occupying the premises and illegally using municipal water, electricity, utilities, which is impeding the work of the service provider that’s on site.
“The pound cannot be fully functional when you have half the premises not being able to be utilised by the person that is supposed to be utilising it.”
The attorney for the SPCA, Heinrich Scholtz, said Buyeye’s statement that the organisation was illegally occupying the premises was misleading.
“The SPCA is not illegally or unlawfully occupying the property,” Scholtz said.
“Upon renewal of the tender some years ago, the SPCA inquired about a lease, to which end the municipality advised the SPCA it could continue to use the property.
“To this end, a separate verbal lease agreement came into operation.
“They must remember that while the SPCA provided its pound services, it never ceased its welfare work.
“As such, the allegation that the lease came to an end upon termination of the tender is simply bad in law.
“We have on numerous occasions informed them of this.
“However, to date, they have simply failed to comply with basic cancellation laws.”
On April 1, the Animal Anti-Cruelty League (AACL) took the new pound service provider, Busy Bees, and the municipality to court following a series of alleged disturbing discoveries made at the premises.
A settlement agreement was made an order of court which stated that the municipality, through Busy Bees Service Providers, would carry out certain functions in respect of the animals housed at the Kariega pound.
In terms of the agreement, the municipality, through its service provider, must ensure:
- The animals at the pound receive water at least twice daily and be fed a nutritious diet appropriate to age, condition and species;
- The kennels are cleaned and disinfected twice a day;
- The cattery has adequate litter boxes, emptied regularly;
- Bedding is provided; and
- The municipality will ensure properly trained personnel are available to assist Busy Bees, particularly in relation to treatment and euthanasia, until the service provider is in a position to permanently employ someone.
Three days later, on April 4, SPCA staff notified the AACL that by 11.30am the animals at the pound had not been fed or provided with water.
A municipal employee arrived shortly afterwards with her son and they were forced to cut the locks on the cages to feed the animals.
While acknowledging the incident, Buyeye claimed the reason the animals had not been tended to on April 4 was due to the SPCA’s occupation of the premises.
“An employee of the current service provider was mugged on his way to work,” Buyeye said.
“He was seriously wounded on his way to work to feed the animals.
“This employee should be staying on the premises that is currently occupied by the SPCA.
“So this employee now must risk his life and walk in the dark.
“Now he has been mugged because of the SPCA’s refusal to vacate the premises.
“Now we can’t feed the animals.
“Our employees and the service provider’s employees are at risk.”
Scholtz, however, said the municipality was using the SPCA as a scapegoat for its own shortcomings in service delivery.
“We cannot fathom how our client is responsible for the alarming crime rate,” Scholtz said.
“It just shows the lack of operational functionality, in that ‘due to a person not being on the premises’ they are unable to feed animals at 8am.
“The logic is so flawed that it’s not even in the room.
“The pound has various offices which remain unoccupied.
“The SPCA operates out of one office and containers.
“The clinic is to date not operational simply because they do not have the personnel to operate the pound.”
Municipal spokesperson Sithembiso Soyaya said it was important to emphasise that there was no deliberate failure or refusal by the municipality to comply with the court directive.
“The circumstances were exceptional and unplanned, and corrective steps were taken as soon as the matter came to the municipality’s attention.
“The municipality remains committed to full compliance with the court order and to ensuring the welfare of all animals under its care.”
While the municipal pound at present houses small animals like dogs and cats, the large animal pound has remained empty since October 2025.
Buyeye said the risk of a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak had prevented the pound from taking in livestock and other large animals and that the municipality was waiting on the provincial department of agriculture to give it the go-ahead to start impounding stray cattle.
AACL lawyer Susan Bowden-Gilfillan said there was at present no experienced pound master for the pound, and that the service provider was not registered to provide euthanasia or basic veterinary care.
“The fact that the NMBM agreed to appoint such trained staff members to assist Busy Bees is an acknowledgement that Busy Bees does not comply with the basic requirements of being the service provider.”
Scholtz said it would appear that the municipality was using bullying tactics to resolve the impasse.
“The municipality has funds available to it in order to litigate.
“The NPOs [SPCA and AACL] do not have these funds available.
“It is quite concerning that the municipality wishes to proceed with legal action in the high court when a lower court will have jurisdiction for the relief sought.
“This is simply a tactic to inflate legal fees and bully our client.
“The municipality is the owner of the property and it can eject the SPCA; however it must follow the correct procedures.”
The Herald reported on April 8 that angry residents from neighbouring properties had arrived at a viewing of the new proposed SPCA premises to raise multiple concerns regarding the animal welfare organisation being in such close proximity to their farms.
While the offer for purchase has been accepted by the seller after animal lovers banded together to raise more than R2.7m, the sale is dependent on the rezoning of the premises from an agricultural property to an animal care centre.
Uitenhage SPCA chair Deirdre Swift stressed that if the rezoning of the property did not go ahead, the SPCA would be in dire straits.
“The municipality does not want us here.
“They have been trying to get us to move since January — but we need somewhere to go.”
- Follow The Herald WhatsApp channel today and stay connected to the stories shaping our world.
The Herald
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.