- Father found in contempt over unpaid child maintenance.
- A 60-day prison sentence was imposed, conditional on compliance within 14 days.
- Arrears in maintenance have grown to more than R600,000 after years of litigation
The High Court in Bloemfontein has found that the father deliberately failed for years to meet child maintenance orders and did so in bad faith.
It found the father in contempt of court for repeatedly ignoring child maintenance orders. The court gave him a suspended 60-day prison sentence, ruling that he acted deliberately and without good faith.
Acting Judge L Mpama delivered the judgment on 10 September 2026 after years of legal battles between the divorced parents over support for their three minor children.
The High Court sentenced the father to 60 days in jail but suspended the sentence for two years if he follows the 2018 maintenance order within 14 days. If he does not pay, the South African Police Service is allowed to carry out an arrest warrant.
More than R600,000 in arrears
The couple divorced in 2018 and the mother was given primary care and residence of the children. The divorce order required the father to pay R9,000 every month in maintenance.
By the time they divorced, the father already owed R58,000 in unpaid maintenance. The settlement allowed him to pay off this amount by covering the children’s school fees, but he still had to make the monthly maintenance payments.
The High Court heard that after an interim order in 2021, the father made only a few payments before stopping completely. His unpaid maintenance has now grown to R612,000, which he did not dispute.
Deliberate refusal to comply
The High Court found that the father knew about every maintenance order against him and could not give any credible reason for still refusing to comply.
Judge Mpama said the father’s failure to pay was not accidental or because he could not afford it. The court found he had shown deliberate and wilful disregard for court orders and acted in bad faith.
The judgment made it clear that court orders remain binding unless they are set aside by a court, regardless of how someone feels about them.
Children’s best interests prevailed
While the High Court said the maintenance court should decide the exact amount owed, it refused to reduce the father’s maintenance payments from R9,000 to the interim amount of R6,000.
Judge Mpama said lowering the amount would not serve the children’s best interests, stressing that the courts have a constitutional duty to protect their welfare.
The court found that the father’s long-term failure to support his children violated their rights and harmed their best interests for more than ten years.
Former prosecutor rebuked
In a particularly stern finding, the High Court noted that the father had once been a prosecutor and counted as a maintenance officer under South African law.
Judge Mpama said his failure to respect the very duties he once enforced was a direct challenge to the courts’ authority and could not be excused.
The father was also ordered to pay the legal costs of the contempt application, except for the costs of unnecessary annexures filed during the proceedings.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
