- A father successfully appealed a maintenance order after the court found the magistrate inflated his income, duplicated certain child expenses and applied an unjustified inflation rate.
- The judgment clarifies that maintenance appeals must be noted within 20 calendar days under the Maintenance Act regulations, not 20 court days.
- The monthly cash maintenance was reduced to R2 000, with school and medical expenses separated and apportioned clearly on a percentage basis.
The High Court in the Western Cape has sharply reduced a father’s maintenance bill after finding that the original order was riddled with unexplained, inflated, and duplicated figures.
One example was a monthly grocery allocation of R1 666.66 for a child whose share of household groceries, according to the evidence, should have been closer to R1 040.
The court examined nearly every major figure used by the magistrate in setting cash maintenance at R7 500 per month. The evidence showed the mother spent about R5 200 a month on groceries for the household. The court noted that dividing this into five parts, representing two adults and one child, would yield approximately R1 040 for the child.
“It is impossible to fathom how the magistrate arrived at the amount of R1 666.66,” the judgment stated. “There is no justification for the figure to be found in the record or in her written reasons.”
The court found other glaring errors, including an allocation of R600 per month for school transport when the child’s school was just two streets away, and no transport was required. The judgment said that the amount should have been removed.
Another calculation error was the child’s share of the mother’s car instalment, set at R1 650 per month. The court rejected dividing the instalment mechanically without regard for actual usage. Instead, it substituted a much lower estimate based on SARS per kilometre rates and the limited driving done for the child.
The court also identified duplication. Medication and stationery were included in the cash maintenance calculation, even though these items were already provided for elsewhere in the order.
Inflated income and arbitrary inflation
The magistrate’s calculations did not stop at the child’s expenses. The court found that the magistrate had incorrectly set the father’s monthly income at R22 000, far above his actual average income of R13 480. This was done by including a notional R12 000 “saving” if he sold his car. The judgment observed that the magistrate confused an increase in income with a reduction in expenditure.
Additionally, the magistrate applied a 7 percent inflation rate to the child’s expenses without explanation. The official inflation rate was closer to 5.3 percent. The court said there was no justification for the magistrate to apply a rate of 7 percent, and she erred in doing so.
Order replaced and maintenance recalculated
After correcting the flawed figures, the High Court recalculated the father’s share of the child’s general monthly expenses at 25 percent. This was based on updated net incomes of R13 480 for the father and R42 000 for the mother. The monthly cash maintenance was reduced and rounded to R2 000, effective 1 March 2026.
Education and medical expenses were separated out. The father was required to pay 25 percent of school fees, 50 percent of medical aid contributions, uncovered medical expenses subject to a cap, school uniforms, and prescribed stationery.
The court stressed that magistrates must set out a clear and reasoned basis for their figures, especially when estimates are involved. This allows appellate courts to meaningfully review those decisions.
The appeal was upheld, and the magistrate’s order was set aside in full.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
