Main Issue: Failure to pay maintenance order and leave to appeal/ applicant seeking to appeal to this Court concerning his failure to pay maintenance for his two minor children

Findings: Court reasons that the application does not raise any constitutional complaint and only wants to draw this Court’s attention to certain factual matters to which he asserts the magistrate did not pay due regard. It is however clear from this Court’s decision in S v Boesak that a complaint that a criminal court erred on the facts does not, on its own, constitute a constitutional matter. Therefore, it is held that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this application.

Main Issue:  Maintenance order and its variation

Findings: Upon the parties’ divorce, the court ordered the appellant to pay maintenance for the respondent and the minor children. Subsequently, the appellant obtained an order from the Maintenance Court that the amounts payable be reduced. That order replaced the high court order. When appellant fell into arrears, the respondent successfully approached the high court for order of contempt of order. Court held that the high court was not informed that its order had been replaced by one from the maintenance court, as the original court was no longer valid, the committal of the appellant to prison for contempt was not competent and appeal was upheld.

Main Issue: Maintenance and deliberate failure to comply

Findings: Appellant was found guilty and sentenced to 1440 hours of periodical imprisonment. On appeal to this Court, it was held that although a wholly suspended periodical imprisonment would not serve as adequate punishment for the appellant, appeal succeeded to the extent that 1160 hours of 1440 hours are suspended for 5 years.

Main Issue: Maintenance/termination of duty to support

Findings: Appellant challenged that once their child attained majority, obligation to pay maintenance terminated. However Court held that majority does not necessarily terminate duty to support and further stipulated that even when the child becomes self-supporting, it remained effective until it is varied or terminated by a court order.

Main Issue: Paternity/maintenance

Findings: In a claim for maintenance, appellant is disputing paternity. Court held that, there is no call for maintenance court to have ordered blood tests. Further, there is clear authority that it would not have been in the interests of the children to have ordered such tests. However, maintenance court failing to obtain adequate evidence as to appropriate quantum of maintenance-allocation of contribution being made merely on the basis of appellant being a police sergeant earning R2700 a month. Matter referred back for further investigation into the question of quantum of contribution.

Some consideration should be given to the best interest of child.

Main Issue: Contravention of maintenance order and legality of maintenance order as the “father” had undertaken to maintain the child even though he was not its father.

Findings: The accused had undertaken to maintain the child even though he was not his father and this undertaking was converted into a court order. Court held that there is a mistake in that the proceedings should have been converted into an enquiry as such a court order cannot be made in terms of Act 99 of 1998. Therefore conviction is set aside and matter referred back for enquiry.

Main Issue: Payment of maintenance/ private or public school? Whether respondent was in contempt of court?

Findings:  Court held that it was common cause the respondent had full knowledge of the order. The confusion arose due to the ambiguity of the court order in its failure to specify whether the duty to pay all school fees referred to private or public school. Court held that because the child was in public school when maintenance order was made, registering the child to a private school after that without consulting the accused was inappropriate and dismissed the application.

Main Issue: Failure to pay maintenance and sentencing/ capacity of magistrate to order payment of arrear

Findings: An enquiry in terms of the Maintenance Act 23 of 1963, s13 was initiated against the accused to ascertain the accused ability to pay maintenance. Magistrate made order compelling accused to pay all arrear maintenance outstanding. Because a presiding officer does not have the power to make an order in respect of arrear maintenance not paid in terms of an existing order, the order was set aside.

Main Issue: Maintenance/duty to pay

Findings: Respondent is the  appellant’s daughter. She instituted action against appellant for payment of maintenance. The court of first instance assessed her need for maintenance and set a date by which maintenance payments would cease as appellant was no longer a minor. On the basis of evidence appellant produced, she has also become self supporting.  Court held that as a parent’s duty to pay maintenance depends on the child’s need and the parent’s ability to pay, the court agreed that payments would cease as appellant was no longer a minor and already self supporting but ordered payment for one last month leading up to the date on which the previous order held payments would cease.

Main Issue: Maintenance/paternal grandparent’s duty to an enquiry to pay maintenance

Findings: Applicant (single mother) was receiving inadequate maintenance contribution from the father of her children. She requested the respondent to summon the paternal grandparents for an enquiry to establish their ability to pay maintenance. Court held that he common law rule which prohibits calling grandparents for enquiry and subsequent payment of maintenance if possible is unconstitutional as it also failed article 36 of Constitution as it is unjustifiable.