South Africa Case Law

J.A.N v L.K.N (Nee B.) and Another (27077/2021)

J.A.N v L.K.N (Nee B.) and Another (27077/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 505 (24 May 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

27077/2021

Judge

S Baqwa

The court found that neither party had established a material change in circumstances warranting a variation of the existing Rule 43 maintenance order. The applicant's attempt to avoid his maintenance obligations and seek a stay of execution was deemed an abuse of process, as Rule 43(6) does not provide for such relief. The first respondent's counter-application was similarly dismissed as it sought to revisit issues already decided and to escalate demands beyond what is contemplated by Rule 43. The court emphasized that the Rule 43 procedure is intended to provide interim relief and should no…

Source excerpt

• Rule 43 Interim Relief
• Variation Of Maintenance
• Abuse Of Process
• Spousal Maintenance
• Costs Orders

E.K v P.K and Others

E.K v P.K and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 69; 53105/2021 (9 February 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

53105/2021

Judge

M Mojapelo

The court found that the first respondent failed to rebut the inference that his non-compliance with the Rule 43 maintenance order was wilful and mala fide. The respondent's evidence of changed circumstances was insufficient, lacking supporting affidavits, bank statements, or credible documentation. Previous attempts to vary the order were dismissed, and the respondent continued to live an affluent lifestyle while neglecting his maintenance obligations. The court held that pending variation applications do not excuse non-compliance with a High Court Rule 43 order, which remains enforceable un…

Source excerpt

• Maintenance Order
• Contempt Of Court
• Rule 43 Application
• Variation Of Maintenance
• Wilful Default
• Urgent Application

S v H (A5001/2022)

S v H (A5001/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 355 (24 May 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A5001/2022

Judges

S C Mia, M Mdalana-Mayisela, G Malindi

The court found that the respondent was aware of the maintenance order and had complied until September 2020, after which he unilaterally reduced payments and removed the minor child from his medical aid. The respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence of inability to comply, as he did not attach the debt review application or provide full financial disclosure. The court held that the requirements for contempt were met beyond reasonable doubt, and the respondent did not rebut the presumption of wilfulness and mala fides. The court further held that, given the urgent circumstances and the…

Source excerpt

• Maintenance Order Enforcement
• Contempt Of Court
• Variation Of Maintenance
• Urgent Application
• Burden Of Proof

M.S v D.S (15002/2020)

M.S v D.S (15002/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 167 (29 March 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

15002/2020

Judge

JJC Swanepoel

The High Court dismissed an application to set aside and rescind a Rule 43 maintenance order, finding no credible change in circumstances and holding the application was an abuse of process.

• Maintenance Pendente Lite
• Rule 43 Applications
• Rescission Of Order
• Variation Of Maintenance
• Abuse Of Process
• Rule-43

J.S.O v H.W.O (24384/2009)

J.S.O v H.W.O (24384/2009) [2014] ZAGPPHC 133 (19 February 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

24384/2009

Judge

D D Mogotsi

The court found that the respondent was aware of the maintenance and medical expense obligations imposed by the court order and settlement agreement. Despite receiving a substantial retrenchment package, the respondent selectively complied with the order, paying only maintenance arrears and refusing to pay medical shortfalls, which he deemed unreasonable without seeking clarification or variation from the court. The respondent continued to support his major children and incurred discretionary expenses, demonstrating capacity to pay but a lack of bona fides regarding his obligations to the app…

Source excerpt

• Maintenance Order Enforcement
• Contempt Of Court
• Variation Of Maintenance
• Best Interests Of Child
• Medical Expenses Shortfall

B.A.C v K.L.F.C (5059/09)

B.A.C v K.L.F.C (5059/09) [2010] ZAWCHC 120 (18 May 2010)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

5059/09

Judge

Zondi

Contempt application over unpaid CPI-linked maintenance was dismissed after the court found the respondent’s non-compliance was not proved wilful and mala fide.

• Civil Contempt Of Court
• Maintenance Order Enforcement
• Arrear Maintenance
• Variation Of Maintenance
• Burden Of Proof
• Wilfulness And Mala Fide

Sparks v Sparks (127/95)

Sparks v Sparks (127/95) [1997] ZASCA 75 (19 September 1997)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

127/95

Judges

Mahomed, Smalberger, Howie, Zulman, Stretcher

The court held a reduced maintenance order should operate only prospectively, so the mother could keep interim payments spent on the children.

• Maintenance Orders
• Variation Of Maintenance
• Appeal Procedure
• Maintenance Act 1963
• Maintenance-orders
• Variation-of-maintenance