NSPCA faces financial struggles after taking on Daybreak Farms in animal cruelty court case
Image: Independent Newspapers Archives
The National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA) has warned of severe financial strain after spending over R580 000 responding to what it calls a 'morally reprehensible' animal welfare disaster at Daybreak Farms, despite a High Court ruling in its favour.
The Gauteng High Court confirmed an interim order against Daybreak Farms on May 23, holding the poultry company accountable for the mass suffering and death of over a million birds. The ruling ordered Daybreak to cease inhumane practices and cover the NSPCA's legal costs.
However, the NSPCA's ability to recover those funds is now in jeopardy after Daybreak Farms placed itself into voluntary business rescue. 'As a non-profit organisation reliant on public support, the NSPCA cannot shoulder this burden alone.'
The organisation is now appealing to the public and private sector for urgent financial support to continue its work.
'Immediate financial support is critical to continue our fight for the animals who have no voice,' the NSPCA said.
Following extensive investigations at Daybreak Farms, the NSPCA uncovered what it called 'gross negligence, systemic mismanagement, and a complete abdication of responsibility' by the company's leadership. This led to the laying of criminal charges against the Board of Directors.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Ad Loading
Senior Inspector Nazareth Appalsamy, Manager of the NSPCA's Farm Animal Protection Unit, said: 'The law compels us to value every single animal individually. To witness the suffering of one animal multiplied by a million is not just a disaster — it is a grave and morally reprehensible failure.'
Graphic details from the investigation revealed birds left to cannibalise each other, others with large open wounds, and many too weak to move.
The High Court order compels Daybreak to ensure proper feeding, halt chick placements until proper care can be assured, stop inhumane culling, provide a resolution plan, and grant the NSPCA full access to facilities. The court cited the company's 'collapse of responsibility' and 'financial mismanagement of the available funds.'
The NSPCA is now working with SAPS and the NPA to pursue criminal accountability. 'We will now work closely… to pursue justice on behalf of the animals that suffered,' the NSPCA said.
THE MERCURY
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
18 hours ago
- The Citizen
Court declares Joburg's non-sectional title refuse charge tariff unlawful
A high court judgment ruled that CoJ's reclassification of non-sectional title properties was inconsistent with legislation and by-laws. The High Court in Johannesburg has found that the City of Johannesburg (CoJ) acted unlawfully in imposing a non-sectional title refuse charge tariff on certain residential accommodation buildings that were already paying a refuse charge tariff. A judgment handed down by Judge Mandlenkosi Motha on 21 July 2025, declared the classification of 'non-sectional title properties,' in CoJ's Tariff of Charges for Solid Waste Services for the years 2018 to 2022, unlawful and inconsistent with existing regulation. There were 42 applicants in total, 41 of which were companies owning a collective 7 333 multi-unit residential accommodation units within the city. These included Indluplace Properties, the Johannesburg Housing Company and Sirius Property Investments. The remaining applicant was the Johannesburg Property Owners and Managers Association, a non-profit organisation established to represent the interests of property owners and managers in the city. Judge Motha said this matter originated in CoJ's reclassification 'of multi-unit residential rental accommodation, from the refuse charge tariff to the non-sectional title refuse tariff'. Essentially, he said the matter concerns the lawfulness of CoJ imposing a non-sectional title tariff on buildings that were paying a refuse charge tariff. ALSO READ: Pikitup fleet woes cause waste collection delays in Johannesburg Applicant's argument The applicants sought an order declaring the classification of non-sectional title properties – as contained in the CoJ's Tariff of Charges for Solid Waste Services for the years 2018 to 2022 – unlawful and inconsistent with the Local Government Municipal Systems Act (MSA) of 2000, read with CoJ's Tariff Determination By-laws of 2008, and set it aside. The applicants argued that, as stipulated in the MSA, it is the municipality's policies and by-laws that dictate how its tariff-setting powers must be exercised. They further stated that, in terms of this Act, a municipality must adopt and implement a tariff policy on the levying of fees for municipal services – whether provided directly by the municipality or through service delivery agreements – and that this policy must comply with the provisions of the MSA, the Municipal Finance Management Act, and any other applicable legislation. ALSO READ: Tshwane cleaning tariff may be challenged in court The city's counter-argument The CoJ argued that the reclassification was not unlawful, as the tariff determination scheme arises from relevant enabling legislation. It maintained that non-sectional title units should be subject to municipal levies in the same manner as sectional title units. The city further claimed that regarding the policy or by-laws, the reference to non-sectional titles would not be 'a fundamentally wrong way of interpreting the MSA'. It added that 'the remit of the empowering provision of Section 75(2) of the Act is wide enough to permit 'the COJ to impose or extend the non-sectional title tariff to flats in buildings owned by the applicants'.' Judge Motha said the court referred the CoJ's counsel to the detailed differentiations and distinctions in the Tariff Determination By-laws, particularly that the council may allow for the following categorisation of users: 'residential or domestic; commercial; industrial; farming; government; and state-owned enterprises.' In response to CoJ's counsel arguing that it wasn't necessary for the by-laws to explicitly mention the term 'non-sectional title,' Judge Motha posed a rhetorical question: what is the function of by-laws if not to delineate users? Judge Motha referred to two previous judgments, which ruled that local government may only act within the powers lawfully conferred upon it. Further, it's fundamental to South Africa's constitutional order that the legislature and executive in every sphere is bound by the principle that they may exercise no power and perform no function beyond that granted to them by law. ALSO READ: These Gauteng municipalities are lagging behind with their refuse collection bills He said two issues stand out 'like a sore thumb' in this case when properly examining the Tariff Determination Policy, which is created under the MSA. Firstly, 'there is no differentiation called 'sectional title' and 'non-sectional title' properties,' and secondly, to enforce and implement the tariff policy, by-laws 'must' be adopted. 'The creation of a distinction between sectional and non-sectional title properties introduces a category that finds no basis in the empowering provision. 'It, therefore, ineluctably follows that the respondents (CoJ) acted ultra vires in purporting to create a non-sectional title distinction,' he said. Judge Motha added that Chapter 5 of the Tariff Determination Policy defines various types of tariffs for waste and refuse removal. It provides for a 'domestic tariff' that applies to private dwellings per erf, blocks of flats and elderly people's homes, as well as a 'non-domestic tariff' and a 'business refuse' tariff. However, Judge Motha stressed, 'it makes no distinction between sectional title and non-sectional title properties'. ALSO READ: Gauteng's waste collection woes: R1 billion needed for landfills, R60 million for fleets Judge Motha said that to merely contend, as the CoJ does, that Section 75(2) of the MSA is sufficiently broad to permit a distinction between sectional and non-sectional title properties 'is to overlook the pivotal role of a tariff policy and by-laws'. 'Without a tariff policy and by-laws, the imposition of tariffs is left without a rational legal framework and becomes susceptible to challenges on the grounds of unfair discrimination and irrationality. 'For example, sectional title owners whose flats are less than R350 000 do not pay any refuse levies. What is the rationale for charging non-title property owners for units that could be worth less than R350 000?' he asked. Costs were awarded against CoJ. This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.
The Star
2 days ago
- The Star
Botswana Issues Apology to Bridgette Motsepe Over False Corruption Claims
In a significant development marking a shift in regional diplomacy and justice, the government of Botswana has formally apologised to South African businesswoman Bridgette Motsepe for false accusations of corruption and money laundering that surfaced in 2019. The retraction comes after Botswana's High Court confirmed last month that the claims were baseless and made without credible evidence. Motsepe, a well-known mining entrepreneur and philanthropist, was thrust into a political and financial scandal six years ago when Botswana investigator Jako Hubona alleged she was involved in laundering funds stolen from the Bank of Botswana. The accusations went further, suggesting that she co-signed accounts used for the alleged movement of illicit money and was even involved in financing terrorism. Those claims, echoed at the time by the Directorate of Corruption and Economic Crime as well as the country's intelligence services, caused diplomatic strain between Botswana and South Africa, and severely impacted Motsepe's reputation in international business circles. In a strongly worded statement released on Tuesday evening, the Botswana government officially distanced itself from the allegations and took responsibility for the damage caused. 'The allegations made by Jako Hubona against Bridgette Motsepe and supported by the government bodies he mentioned are entirely false and were made recklessly,' the statement read. 'The government of Botswana, the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime, the Directorate of Intelligence and Security Services and Mr Hubona unconditionally retract their allegations and apologise to Mrs Motsepe for making them.' This public apology signals a clear departure from the previous administration's posture. Under President Duma Boko, elected earlier this year on a platform of legal reform and regional cooperation, Botswana has moved to restore credibility in its institutions and rebuild relationships in the Southern African Development Community. President Boko's administration described the saga as a failure of both process and ethics. 'The new human rights-based government of Botswana under the leadership of advocate Duma Boko reaffirms its commitment to the rule of law and assures the public that fabrications of the nature that have occurred will never recur,' the statement added. Motsepe, who is also the sister-in-law of South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, has not yet issued a formal response, but sources close to her confirmed she is considering legal action for damages caused by the years of reputational harm. Political analysts suggest that the apology is not only a legal and diplomatic necessity but also a strategic move by Botswana to stabilise relations with its neighbour amid broader efforts to attract foreign investment and rebuild institutional trust. South Africa's Department of International Relations and Cooperation welcomed the apology, noting that the matter had weighed heavily on bilateral relations in recent years. 'We trust this marks a new chapter of openness and mutual respect between our two countries,' the department said.
IOL News
2 days ago
- IOL News
Botswana Issues Apology to Bridgette Motsepe Over False Corruption Claims
In a significant development marking a shift in regional diplomacy and justice, the government of Botswana has formally apologised to South African businesswoman Bridgette Motsepe for false accusations of corruption and money laundering that surfaced in 2019. The retraction comes after Botswana's High Court confirmed last month that the claims were baseless and made without credible evidence. Motsepe, a well-known mining entrepreneur and philanthropist, was thrust into a political and financial scandal six years ago when Botswana investigator Jako Hubona alleged she was involved in laundering funds stolen from the Bank of Botswana. The accusations went further, suggesting that she co-signed accounts used for the alleged movement of illicit money and was even involved in financing terrorism. Those claims, echoed at the time by the Directorate of Corruption and Economic Crime as well as the country's intelligence services, caused diplomatic strain between Botswana and South Africa, and severely impacted Motsepe's reputation in international business circles. In a strongly worded statement released on Tuesday evening, the Botswana government officially distanced itself from the allegations and took responsibility for the damage caused.'The allegations made by Jako Hubona against Bridgette Motsepe and supported by the government bodies he mentioned are entirely false and were made recklessly,' the statement read. 'The government of Botswana, the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime, the Directorate of Intelligence and Security Services and Mr Hubona unconditionally retract their allegations and apologise to Mrs Motsepe for making them.' This public apology signals a clear departure from the previous administration's posture. Under President Duma Boko, elected earlier this year on a platform of legal reform and regional cooperation, Botswana has moved to restore credibility in its institutions and rebuild relationships in the Southern African Development Community. President Boko's administration described the saga as a failure of both process and ethics. 'The new human rights-based government of Botswana under the leadership of advocate Duma Boko reaffirms its commitment to the rule of law and assures the public that fabrications of the nature that have occurred will never recur,' the statement who is also the sister-in-law of South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, has not yet issued a formal response, but sources close to her confirmed she is considering legal action for damages caused by the years of reputational harm. Political analysts suggest that the apology is not only a legal and diplomatic necessity but also a strategic move by Botswana to stabilise relations with its neighbour amid broader efforts to attract foreign investment and rebuild institutional trust. South Africa's Department of International Relations and Cooperation welcomed the apology, noting that the matter had weighed heavily on bilateral relations in recent years. 'We trust this marks a new chapter of openness and mutual respect between our two countries,' the department said.
