Latest news with #SmallClaimsCourt
The Citizen
6 days ago
- The Citizen
WATCH: Polly-tics in Mbombela courtroom
A bitter legal battle is unfolding over the custody of an African Grey parrot being claimed by two passionate owners. In one corner: Prominent local lawyer Obert Ntuli, who insists the bird is his beloved 'Zippy'. In the other, Crystle Pachos, equally adamant that the feathered companion is her cherished boy, 'Zazu'. Ntuli won the latest round in the Mpumalanga High Court on July 22, when Pachos' urgent application to stop the enforcement of a March 2025 court order to hand over the parrot was dismissed due to lack of urgency. The conflict began on February 21, 2020, when Steiltes resident Pachos reported her bird missing. She launched a relentless social media campaign to recover Zazu, offering a R1 000 reward, and posting almost daily pleas for assistance. Her search even involved an animal communicator and well-known tracker, Jaco Klopper, the owner of South African Bush Warrior Association, who confirmed his involvement to Lowvelder – but it was all in vain. She described Zazu as a ''playful bird with mood swings', emphasising their bond. 'Zazu will always stay my birdie boy. No matter what happens, he will always have a piece of my heart with him.' Hope was fading, but 14 months later, a breakthrough came. On May 10, 2021, a woman from Valencia in Mbombela contacted Pachos, claiming her father had received an African grey from a friend. After checking missing pet listings on local Facebook groups, she believed it might be Zazu. Pachos visited on May 12, and, according to an affidavit from the woman, which was later used in court, the bird 'showed immediate affection' toward her. A reunion video was shared online and an article published in Lowvelder celebrated Zazu's return. ALSO READ: Zazu back home after more than a year Pachos also located Garth Richardson, who had briefly possessed the bird. In a sworn statement from Richardson, he claims to have found the parrot in his garden around May 5, 2021, and attempted to locate the rightful owner. On May 13, Pachos took Zazu to the vet to be microchipped. The same day, Ntuli's daughter posted that one of their African greys had gone missing two days prior. The bird, she said, had a foot band and was known to greet Ntuli in their home language. Her post featured videos of three African greys living with the family's toy pom dogs. Soon, Pachos and Obert Ntuli started engaging in a tense WhatsApp exchange, each adamant the parrot was theirs. 'We are crying a river of tears,' Ntuli wrote. Pachos responded: 'It's not your bird. I hope you find yours.' With both living in the same area of Steiltes, the feud intensified. Their arguments grew increasingly hostile, with threats and insults flying back and forth. By early 2023, their communication cooled down, until Ntuli announced on March 2 that it was time to go to court. Court processes start Ntuli first turned to the Small Claims Court in July 2023, but the case was deemed too complex for the court's jurisdiction. On July 23, the bird was taken to Van Wijk Street Veterinary Hospital for a behavioural assessment by Dr Donnie Engelbrecht to determine its reaction to both parties. According to a report from Engelbrecht, the bird reportedly responded poorly to Ntuli, retreating and becoming defensive. With Pachos, it 'displayed enthusiastic greeting behaviour', including somersaults and showed strong willingness to interact with her. However, Engelbrecht concluded that interaction alone could not determine ownership. 'Bias and time lapsed skew behavioural observation,' he noted. In October 2024, the case was heard in the Mbombela District Court. Pachos' late filing meant it was heard unopposed. More controversy followed. Evidence presented by Ntuli showed Pachos had misrepresented the date the bird was microchipped. A vet's affidavit confirmed the microchipping took place in 2021, not 2019 as she had claimed. Further confusion concerned the bird's leg ring. Ntuli claimed the number on the bird's ring had been filed off. The vet said their records did not reflect whether the bird had a band, as recording the details of leg bands wasn't standard practice unless explicitly requested by the owner. Pachos admitted to falsifying the microchip date, stating in an affidavit that continuous harassment led her to make 'an irrational error in judgment to create proof of ownership'. She apologised to both Ntuli and the vet, stating: 'My dreadful conduct does not detract from the fact that Zazu affectionately responds to me and not to Ntuli.' She denied tampering with the leg ring and submitted evidence from the bird's breeder, Martin Belo, who confirmed he sold Zazu to her in 2019 and that the ring matched his identification style. In March 2025, judgment was delivered in Ntuli's favour and the court ordered that the bird be returned to him. Importantly, the court clarified it was not tasked with establishing true ownership, as this was beyond its jurisdiction. On March 10, Pachos filed a notice of appeal, arguing that the court erred by not addressing ownership more directly. She contended the case should have been treated as rei vindicatio (a property ownership claim), where the rightful owner, the existence of the property, and unlawful possession by the other party are central. Ntuli has since filed a cross-appeal and a court date has been set for October 2025. An urgent application on July 22, 2025, in the Mpumalanga High Court to halt the return of the bird was not successful as urgency could not be established – and on July 25, Pachos had to hand Zazu over to Ntuli. 'I'm delighted to have Zippy back,' Ntuli told Lowvelder, proudly showing the bird in an open enclosure with two other African greys and several toy pom dogs. 'If it wasn't my bird, I wouldn't have taken it. Look how happy he is.' He added that all his parrots came from Montana Nursery. Pachos, however, remains heartbroken. 'I cannot accept the loss of Zazu,' she said. Her next legal step remains undetermined. The conclusion of Engelbrecht's report stands out: 'The only constructive recommendation would be to ultimately determine the best candidate for the bird's welfare.'
Irish Daily Mirror
26-07-2025
- Irish Daily Mirror
Former bride weeps in court over failure to get back 'priceless' wedding flowers
A Co Louth woman has wept in court over not being able to get back her 'priceless' and 'irreplaceable' wedding flowers from a woman who was hired to preserve and frame the flowers. At the Small Claims Court at Ennis District Court, former bride, Michelle Markey became visibly upset after telling Judge Alec Gabbett of her failed efforts to obtain the return of her wedding flowers from Co Clare woman, Charlotte Roche. Ms Markey of Oriel Rd, Collon, Co Louth told Judge Gabbett: "My priceless flowers. I gave them away - I would have kept them if I had known I would never get my wedding flowers back." Judge Gabbett said that "wedding flowers hold sentimental value, some people put them on their mother's graves". He told Ms Markey: "I get that sentimentality aspect." The Irish Mirror's Crime Writers Michael O'Toole and Paul Healy are writing a new weekly newsletter called Crime Ireland. Click here to sign up and get it delivered to your inbox every week Ms Markey told Judge Gabbett: "I gave away my - I'm sorry..." and momentarily began to cry before quickly recomposing herself. In response, Judge Gabbett said: "You are okay. It is fine. Take your time. You find the whole thing upsetting because the lack of communication is the biggest issue?" Ms Markey agreed. She said that the flowers are 'irreplaceable'. She said: "I do have evidence to show that this is not an isolated incident and reviews on a website show that this has happened to other brides." There was no appearance in court by Charlotte Roche of Laghtagoona, Corofin, Co Clare who agreed to provide the floral service to Ms Markey. Ms Markey was claiming €350 for the loss of her wedding flowers and Judge Gabbett granted her a decree of €200 for the replacement of the flowers against Ms Roche. He said: "That is the best I can do for you." Ms Markey told Judge Gabbett that she entered a service agreement on October 9, 2023 with Ms Roche when a €50 deposit was paid to Ms Roche for drying, preserving, artwork and framing of wedding day flowers. Ms Markey said that Ms Roche set up a new company, Lush Flower Art Ltd, in 2024. She said that the flowers were received by Ms Roche on November 7, 2023 and Ms Markey said that she was told that 16 weeks would be allowed for the completion of the artworks. She said that after multiple emails and texts between December 2023 and November 2024, including several requests to return the flowers, on November 23, 2024 she was informed via email by Ms Roche that she would not be progressing with the piece. She said: "I requested a return of deposit and flowers and neither was received at this time." Ms Markey said that Ms Roche cancelled the service over a review she had left on a weddings website. Ms Markey said that the deposit was returned on January 4 but no return of flowers and subsequent requests for return of flowers were ignored. Representing herself, Ms Markey told Judge Gabbett she travelled 200km to be in court in Ennis on a six-hour round trip from Co Louth "and had to organise childcare and take a day off work". After seeing that the next Small Claims case on the list was a Kerrie Horgan vs Charlotte Roche (Bradley), Judge Gabbett remarked 'Oh dear'. There was no appearance by either party in that case and Judge Gabbett adjourned that case to September. Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest news from the Irish Mirror direct to your inbox: Sign up here.
Telegraph
15-03-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
‘Ryanair lost my booking – now its customer service bots are sending me in circles'
Dear Gill, On December 1, I booked a flight from London Stansted to Barcelona Reus for a short break in June. It cost £232 return. This sum was taken from my account but I didn't receive a confirmation email. On the Ryanair portal it gave a booking reference for the flight but listed zero passengers. I contacted the airline which said it had not received payment due to a banking glitch and the money would reappear in my account within the next 10 days. This didn't happen. When I approached my bank in early January it said that because it was a 'Faster Payment' it couldn't be challenged but the money had definitely arrived in Ryanair's account as evidenced on my bank statement. Back at Ryanair I was sent in circles by both bots and humans. I submitted three complaint tickets which all received generic, irrelevant responses. My bank suggested I escalate to the Small Claims Court! But I am hoping you can offer a beacon of light to burn through Ryanair's red tape. – Jessica Westwood Dear Jessica, Jess got in touch with me on January 14. Ryanair's latest missive said that a customer services agent would be in touch within 10 working days. I thought we would give Ryanair one last chance but by mid-February there was no response so I got in touch with the airline at a more senior level on February 26. I said that if Ryanair could unscramble the error (given that the 'booking' had a six-digit PNR code) Jess would still like to travel (the fare had now risen to £360). The airline responded saying that Jess had asked for a refund on January 8 which it had processed on February 26, prior to dealing with my query. A message from Ryanair accompanying the notification of refund claimed that the payment she had 'attempted' was not confirmed by her bank, resulting in the booking not being confirmed. But surely if Ryanair had to organise a refund then the funds were received? I asked for a better response. 'Ryanair bookings are only confirmed when payment is cleared by the passenger's bank and a confirmation travel itinerary is emailed to the customer,' said a spokesman. 'Unfortunately, due to a minor tech issue, this passenger... did not receive a confirmation email.' This is the nearest I got to Ryanair accepting liability – but no compensation has been offered. It is worth noting that Faster Payments (the funds sent over instantly from bank accounts) do not offer the same customer protection as credit card payments which, covered by section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, make the bank jointly liable for providing the service paid for and sorting the problem out. Your travel problems solved Gill takes on a different case each week – so please send your problems to her for consideration at asktheexperts@ Please give your full name and, if your dispute is with a travel company, your address, telephone number and any booking reference. Gill can't answer every question, but she will help where she can and all emails are acknowledged.
