The Latin is from the PIE word *ḱwṓ "dog" which is also the source of Sanskrit श्वन् śván, Irish cú, Greek κύων kýōn, Armenian շուն šun, English hound (from an extended form), and possibly Russian сука súka (amongst other cognates).
The PIE word has a plausible (but not certain) etymology within PIE, from a ∅-grade n-stem extension of *péḱu "livestock" (presumably the original sense would have been "thing of the livestock" and have referred to herding and flock guarding dogs) making it plausibly native.
The Hausa word cited does not seem obviously related to the Semitic words to me. Semitic k & l generally correspond directly to Hausa k & l, rather than to c & r, so I will not take it into account.
The Semitic word appears to be old as it appears in all branches, including Ethiosemitic which is far from direct Indo-European influence. It also shows a final -b which has been suggested to be a relic of a class suffix for harmful animals. As such it probably dates to no later than early Proto-Semitic which predates Proto-Indo-European.
So a borrowing from PIE into Proto-Semitic is impossible,but a borrowing from an even earlier stage of Pre-PIE cannot be ruled out on chronological grounds.
In other early loanwords between IE & Semitic n is generally rendered faithfully (see English wine vs Arabic وَيْن wayn- "black grape" & Ge'ez ወይን wäyn "wine") making a borrowing unlikely.
Cross-linguistically, words for dogs often feature a dorsal stop (or postalveolar affricate) often ending in a continuant. Proto-Hmong-Mien has *qluwˣ, Proto-Sino-Tibetan has *d-kʷəj-n (which has sometimes been connected to the PIE word which would then be a loan), Classical Nahuatl has chichi, Quechua has allqu, and Malay has kuyuk. It seems plausible there is some onomatopoeia going on here, with the words being related to a dog's bark.
So neither word appears to be a borrowing of the other, neither is there evidence of both being inherited from a common ancestor of both language families (as no such common ancestor is well-proven).