Scouts appeal against N$2,2m dog attack judgement

The Scouts of Namibia has filed an appeal against a High Court judgement ordering it to pay N$2,2 million to the mother of a boy severely injured in an attack by a vicious dog at its premises four years ago.

Lawyer Nafimane Halweendo, who is representing the Scouts of Namibia, has filed a notice stating that the youth movement is appealing against High Court judge Orben Sibeya’s judgement on a damages claim against the Scouts.

The notice was filed at the Supreme Court near the end of last week.

In his judgement, delivered on 7 June, Sibeya ordered that the Scouts should pay N$2,2 million to the mother of a boy who was injured in an attack by a pit bull terrier at Tsumeb on 7 February 2020.

Sibeya found that the Scouts failed to ensure that the dog, which was held at Scouts premises, was securely enclosed so that he could not do harm to children visiting the premises.

The dog had been under the control of a scout trainer, Desmond Mandjalo, who was living at the premises where the boy was attacked.

The dog ripped off the boy’s scalp and one ear during the attack, and persisted with its attack on the boy until police officers who had been summoned to the scene killed the animal by shooting it.

The boy was hospitalised for more than two months while he went through surgical procedures to replace his scalp and reconstruct part of his face.

Sibeya said in his judgement that the probabilities of the evidence before him established that the Scouts knew of the presence of the pit bull terrier at the premises the organisation was using at Tsumeb.

He also found that the organisation and Mandjalo owed a duty of care to the boy to ensure the dog was locked away in an enclosure, but failed to protect children visiting the premises for scouts training by not securely enclosing the animal.

The Scouts of Namibia denied it was liable over the attack.

Sibeya also ordered that Mandjano must pay N$70 000 in general damages to the boy’s mother.

In the appeal notice, Halweendo argues that Sibeya made an error when he found that the Scouts had been aware of the dog’s presence on its premises.

Halweendo also claims the judge made an error when he failed to find that the dog was under Mandjalo’s control, without the knowledge or authorisation of the Scouts.

The harm to the boy was caused by the negligent conduct of Mandjalo, who failed to lock the dog up and ensure the animal would not escape from his house and cause injury, Halweendo also suggests in the appeal notice.

Halweendo is asking the Supreme Court to uphold his client’s appeal against the High Court judgement, and to dismiss the claim that the boy’s mother filed against the Scouts.