Last week, Zimbabwe was once again confronted with the tragic consequences of dog attacks when a man was fatally mauled by a pit bull in Harare.
The dog was later euthanised, and the owner was arrested and charged with culpable homicide.
That incident has brought national attention to the gaps in how the country regulates the keeping of dangerous dogs and handles accountability when they cause harm.
Drawing from that tragic event, attention now turns to the laws that govern dog ownership, the responsibilities they place on owners, the nature of liability when attacks occur, and what more can be done legally and structurally to reduce the frequency and severity of dog attacks in Zimbabwe.
The Legal Framework on Dog Ownership
Zimbabwe does not have a single unified “Dog Act”. Instead, various laws and bylaws touch on aspects, ranging from animal welfare and disease control to criminal liability and public safety.
The key statutory instruments include- the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act [Chapter 19:09, the Animal Health Act [Chapter 19:01], the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] and the Municipal bylaws (e.g. those from City of Harare, Bulawayo etc.)
Each of these pieces of legislation contributes a specific layer of regulation, but there is no comprehensive framework dealing specifically and adequately with the challenges posed by keeping aggressive or potentially dangerous dogs in residential or public areas.
How Dog Ownership is Regulated
Under Section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, dog owners are legally obligated to prevent cruelty, suffering, neglect, or terror being caused to an animal.
The law imposes a duty on every owner to exercise “reasonable care and supervision” over their animals. Importantly, an owner can be prosecuted not only for acts of cruelty but also for omissions, such as failing to secure a dog properly, that result in harm.
The Animal Health Act, on the other hand, provides the government with powers to regulate the keeping, movement, and control of animals, especially where disease transmission or public safety is concerned.
In terms of Section 5, the Minister of Agriculture may impose restrictions to establish a licensing system for domestic animals, including dogs. However, these provisions are more often invoked in the context of livestock and zoonotic diseases, not urban attacks.
Local authorities may also enact bylaws to govern dog licensing, lease requirements, noise control, and maximum numbers per household. However, in practice, many municipalities fail to enforce these rules, and the public is often unaware of their obligations.
Thus, Zimbabwe does have scattered legal provisions, but these are fragmented, poorly enforced and outdated relative to the scale and seriousness of dog attacks in recent years.
Understanding Liability When Dogs Cause Harm
One of the key questions in cases of dog attacks is “Who is legally responsible when a dog bites, injures, or kills someone?” In Zimbabwean law, the answer largely centers on the owner or the person in control of the dog at the time of the incident.
Criminal Liability
The Criminal Code contains several provisions relevant to dog-related injuries and deaths.
According to Section 89, if a person commands or intentionally causes a dog to attack another, they can be charged with assault via indirect application of force.
Section 90 provides that any person who, by any act whatsoever, causes serious bodily harm to another person, negligently failing to realise that serious bodily harm may result from his or her conduct or negligently failing to guard against that possibility, shall be guilty of negligently causing serious bodily harm.
If someone negligently allows their dog to injure another person, this offence applies.
Section 49 (Culpable Homicide) provides that where negligence results in death, such as failing to confine a known aggressive dog, a person can be charged with culpable homicide.
These provisions make it clear that owners bear criminal responsibility for their dog’s actions, especially where the owner’s conduct falls below the legal standard of reasonable care.
Civil Liability
In addition to criminal charges, victims or their families may pursue delictual claims against dog owners. This includes claims for pain and suffering, medical bills or funeral expenses, loss of income or support and emotional trauma.
This is known as pauperian action or action de pauperise. It involves an action arising out of harm caused by domestic animals. It is based on the notion that an owner is strictly liable for the harm that the animal causes to another person. In order to succeed in such a claim, one should prove;
i. That the Defendant was the owner of the animal when damage was inflicted
ii. That the animal which inflicted the damage is a domestic animal
iii. That the Plaintiff was lawfully present at the location where the damage was inflicted
iv. That the animal acted contra naturam sui generis, that is to say, contrary to its nature or class.
From an objective point of view, the animal must have acted contrary to what may be expected of a decent and well-behaved animal of its kind.
v. The animal must have caused the damage spontaneously from an inward excitement or vice, that is to say, without provocation.
Is Zimbabwe’s Approach Sufficient?
The growing number of fatal dog attacks, many involving pit bulls, boerboels, and crossbreeds, suggests that current laws are no longer sufficient to deal with the real dangers of unregulated dog ownership.
Notable recent attacks include the March 2023 Whitecliffe incident, where a 9-year-old was killed by a boerboel, the August 2022 Matshemhlophe attack, where two boerboels killed a 6-year-old girl and the May 2022 Selbourne Park case, where a man was fatally attacked by his own dogs.
The examples, among others, demonstrate that dog attacks are not isolated events. They are a pattern, especially involving large, aggressive breeds in urban and peri-urban settings.
The combination of weak fencing, lack of training, absence of licensing, and community inaction often leads to predictable, preventable tragedies.
What can be done to reduce Dog attacks in Zimbabwe?
1. Mandatory Licensing and Registration
All dogs, especially aggressive breeds such as pit bulls, boerboels, and rottweilers, should be subject to a compulsory licensing and microchipping system. Owners must register their dogs with municipal authorities and renew the license annually. This would improve traceability and make it easier to hold owners accountable.
2. Breed-Specific Regulation
While some are calling for a total ban on pit bulls, a more effective solution is tight breed-specific regulation. Outright bans are often difficult to enforce and may drive ownership underground. Instead, the following can be done-require muzzling and leashing in public spaces, impose ownership restrictions e.g. no ownership by persons under 21 and require special permits for keeping aggressive breeds, contingent on proof of secure fencing, dog training and insurance.
3. Minimum Housing and Confinement Standards
Legislation should prescribe minimum standards for secure fencing and enclosures for households keeping large or aggressive dogs. These standards should be enforceable through random inspections and backed by municipal fines.
4. Mandatory Insurance
Owners of aggressive breeds should be required to carry third-party liability insurance to cover injury or death caused by their dogs. This protects both the victims and the financial stability of owners.
5. Licensing of Dog Sellers and Crackdown on Illegal Sales
A critical but often overlooked factor contributing to dog attacks is the unregulated sale of dangerous breeds. Many of these high-risk dogs are sold informally through the black market.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
This means individuals without the necessary capacity, training, or housing standards can easily acquire dogs that require expert handling.
Every person or business selling dogs, particularly aggressive breeds, should be licensed by the local authority or veterinary board. Selling dogs without a license should be criminalised with clear penalties, including fines and imprisonment.
Licensing requirements should include proof of veterinary inspection, proper breeding and socialisation practices and verification that buyers meet the legal criteria for ownership.
Cracking down on illegal dog sales would prevent untrained individuals from owning powerful breeds, thereby reducing the risks of abuse, neglect and eventual attacks.
In summation, dog attacks in Zimbabwe are no longer isolated tragedies; they reflect a deeper problem rooted in weak regulation, poor enforcement, and a widespread lack of accountability among dog owners and sellers.
Although legal provisions such as the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the Animal Health Act, and the Criminal Code assign liability to dog owners, they are fragmented, reactive, and under-enforced.
The absence of breed-specific regulations, enforceable confinement standards, licensing of sellers, and a clear system for early intervention continues to put the public at risk.
Preventing future attacks requires a fundamental shift. Dog ownership, especially of aggressive breeds, must be treated as a regulated responsibility, not a causal entitlement.
Owners must be held civilly and criminally accountable, illegal dog sellers must face penalties, and municipalities must be empowered to enforce minimum housing, licensing and training standards.
A comprehensive, proactive legal framework, backed by enforcement and public cooperation, is the only sustainable path forward. The law must evolve, not only to punish after loss, but to protect before it happens again.
Mlondolozi Ndlovu is a Zimbabwean journalist who is also a media lecturer, legal and media researcher. He writes in his personal capacity.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by PostX News and is published from a syndicated feed.)
