Court dismisses case between neighbors sparked by dogs barking

Sometime last year, the Environment Court received a rather intriguing dispute.

Naomi Achieng and Jets Gormsen sued Kethi Kilonzo, a property management firm, Kaisa Ventures Limited, and Orchid Residents Limited in a row over dogs.

Achieng and Gormsen are Kethi’s neighbors. From the case, the two were unhappy with the presence of Kethi’s dogs in the hood. Their issue was that Kethi’s two dogs were allegedly barking at them every time they passed her door.

The two alleged that the dogs had caused fear. They argued it was against the code of conduct that governs the residency, which prohibits the keeping of dogs or pets in common areas.

In her supporting affidavit, Achieng further alleged that despite several complaints to Kaisa and Orchid,  no action has been taken. They asked the court to direct Kethi to keep the dogs off the common areas and keep them within their premises and orders. They also sought orders to force the two companies to enforce the residency code of conduct, touching on the issue of pets in the common area.

In her response, Kethi argued that the case was filed in the wrong forum. She stated that the complaints raised revolved a civil dispute and had nothing to do with the environment.

Kethi also told the court that Achieng and Gormsen had anchored their claims on the wrong law, as it dogs rearing in the city is governed by the Nairobi City County Dog Control and Welfare Act, 2015. The court heard that the Act deals with dog licensing, control, and welfare within the county, including penalties for offences.

She denied that the two pets were a nuisance to anyone. Instead, she accused her neighbors of allegedly provoking them to get video evidence to rely on.

Kethi stated that the dogs were trained, leashed, and controlled when they access the seventh-floor passages and elevators and any other common spaces for their daily health and exercise breaks.

Despite Achieng and Gormsen filing the case, they did not file any submissions to support it.

Kethi urged Justice Mohammed Kollow to dismiss the case.

In his ruling, he agreed with her, saying that although the dispute revolved around a residence, the issues surrounding what dogs do cannot be litigated in an Environment and Lands court.

He further pointed out that the correct forum should have been at the Magistrate’s Court.

“Disputes arising from the Act, such as liability for dog bites or enforcement actions, typically result in civil proceedings or criminal charges for offences. These matters do not inherently relate to the use and occupation of, and title to, land or environmental planning and protection.

“I would then tend to categorize the dispute herein as one that falls within the ambit of the Act as captured above in Section 13 and as such, the appropriate forum would be the Magistrate’s Court, which handles most civil and criminal cases with limited pecuniary jurisdiction, or the High Court if the claim exceeds the Magistrate’s Court's limits or involves constitutional matters,” he ruled.

He dismissed the case and ordered all parties to bear their own costs.