- Man claimed disability and reduced income after skiing accident in Switzerland.
- Court finds he still had enough money to support wife, including access to R20 million in trust.
- Wife allowed to return to court if payment not made within 15 days, possible contempt ruling pending.
The Western Cape High Court has come down hard on a man living in Switzerland who failed to pay his estranged wife interim maintenance, as ordered nearly three years ago.
In a sharply worded judgment, Judge JD Lekhuleni ruled that the respondent, identified only as ML, must immediately pay R277 066.48 in arrears or face contempt of court proceedings.
The parties were married in Switzerland in 2000 and are currently undergoing a contested divorce in South Africa. Although their children have since reached adulthood, ML was still legally obligated to pay maintenance to his wife under a Rule 43 order granted in August 2022. The court had ordered monthly payments of R31 773.70 to cover her living expenses, medical aid, insurance, and other costs.
While ML did make some payments initially, he stopped doing so in January 2023. He claimed that a severe skiing accident in Grindelwald, Switzerland left him temporarily incapacitated. He was hospitalised, fell into a coma for three days, and spent over a year under curatorship as Swiss authorities deemed him unfit to manage his own affairs.
‘He still had the money and just didn’t pay’
Despite these serious health issues, the court found that ML continued to receive 80% of his salary from his employer and later from a Swiss disability pension. Even during his curatorship, he had the financial means to comply with the court’s order, but failed to do so.
“What I also find very concerning,” wrote Judge Lekhuleni, “is that at no time does the respondent provide any proof that he did not have the funds available to pay the applicant.”
Most damning was the respondent’s admission that he is a beneficiary of R20.2 million held in trust, funds he can access to meet his obligations. The judge questioned why the respondent prioritised expenses such as travelling with his new partner over supporting his wife, to whom he is still legally married.
“The respondent needs to prioritise his responsibilities and adhere to the principle of putting first things first,” the judge stated.
Not just negligence, but contempt
The court found the respondent’s failure to pay was not just negligent but amounted to contempt of court. Although the man claimed financial distress, he neither applied to vary the Rule 43 order nor attempted to pay a reduced amount.
He now has 15 court days to comply with the order and make full payment. If he does not, the applicant is permitted to bring a contempt of court application on 10 court days’ notice. The judgment also ordered him to pay the legal costs of the application.
Conviction.co.za
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
