Friday D-Day for Nakuru dog dispute
Rift Valley
By
Yvonne Chepkwony
| Aug 23, 2022
A Nakuru Court will Friday rule on who is the real owner of a pet dog known as Prince.
Prince has been at the centre of an ownership row between two neighbours.
On Monday Nakuru Resident Magistrate Dominic Macharia told one of the protagonists, Dorris Moraa, who was yet to file her submission, to do so before the end of the day after Julius Nyabando filed his.
Nyabando filed a suit against Ms Moraa on January 17, 2022, averring that she had borrowed his German Shepherd sire dog in July 2020 and promised to return it after impregnating her dam.
In his submissions, Nyabando informed the court that he sought an order directing Moraa to release Prince or alternatively pay for the pet. He stated that Moraa had wrongfully detained his dog and was dealing with Prince in a manner inconsistent with his possession rights.
READ MORE
Vodafone to take control of UK operator
Germany firm BioNTech to cut up to 1,860 jobs as Covid jab sales drop
Ruto allocates more funds to sectors likely to win him votes in 2027
Revealed: Consumption outpacing recycling of waste
Packaged Githeri? The rise of ready-to-eat meals
Firm bets on financial inclusion to unlock boda boda sector growth
Leave Nganyas alone: They define Kenyan culture and creativity
Absa unveils Sh100bn asset finance plan
"The thrust of this suit is whether Moraa wrongfully detained Nyabando's dog," read the submission.
Doctor witness
The court document indicated that there was no contention regarding the ownership of the Prince pointing out that the doctor who delivered Prince and another witness who assisted with the delivery of the dog on April 15, 2019, had testified in support of Nyabando.
"It is not in contention that the Nyabando lawfully owned the dog, as established during the examination, a fact that was collaborated by two other witnesses who did state that on April 15, 2019, Nyabando called Dr Omanga to assist in the delivery of the dog," read Nyabando's submissions.
Nyabando observed that the witnesses called by Moraa had agreed that the dog belonged to him, but she started living with it in July 2020.
"He maintained that the duo entered into an oral agreement that the woman would return the dog after siring and would ensure a safe return. She, however, didn't produce in court any document or proof to support her assertion that the dog was given to her as appreciation for the building material and payment of workers," he said.