Key Takeaways
- • The Bloemfontein High Court interdicted the Government Employees' Pension Fund (GEPF) from paying out R426,000 in a father's pension benefits pending the outcome of a maintenance case, according to The Citizen.
- • The GEPF was ordered to pay R160,000 in arrears maintenance (settled February 2024) and R66,000 in future maintenance (ordered May 2025) to the mother, but neither amount was ever paid.
- • Judge Johannes Daffue described the father as a "recalcitrant" parent and said the Maintenance and Pension Funds Acts were "working together in tandem" to provide relief.
- • The father argued he could not meet his maintenance obligations because the GEPF had refused to release his pension benefits, but he did not set out his financial position in court.
Summary
The Bloemfontein High Court has interdicted the Government Employees' Pension Fund (GEPF) from paying out a father's pension benefits, totalling R426,000, while maintenance court proceedings continue, according to The Citizen. The ruling places the pension payout on hold until the maintenance case is finalised.
The dispute dates to January 2020, when the mother instituted divorce proceedings and applied for maintenance. In June 2020, the court ordered the father, then a permanent prosecutor with the National Prosecuting Authority, to pay child maintenance, clothing allowances, school fees, medical expenses and contributions towards the mother's legal costs. According to court documents, he did not comply. His employment ended at the end of 2022. In February 2024, arrears maintenance of R160,000 was settled, with the GEPF ordered to pay that amount into the mother's account. That sum was never paid, and the 2024 settlement did not address the children's future maintenance.
In May 2025, the maintenance court issued a further order against the GEPF for R66,000 in future maintenance, which was also never paid. The same order required the father to pay R2,500 per child monthly, starting 30 June 2026, along with R3,000 per child in clothing costs twice a year and the children's school fees. The mother's evidence that the father had failed to pay throughout was uncontested. Judge Johannes Daffue noted that the Fund had made no payments under the maintenance orders, leaving money meant for the children with the respondent.
The father argued that he could not pay maintenance or school fees because the GEPF refused to release his pension benefits during the court applications. He also contended that the mother was not entitled to further claims, as she had already received 50% of his pension fund under the divorce order. Judge Daffue rejected this, noting that the R160,000 and R66,000 amounts ordered by the maintenance court had never been paid, and that the father had failed to set out his income and expenditure or explain why he could not pay without a GEPF payout.
The judge urged the maintenance court to expedite its processes and said there was "no reason" the Fund should not immediately pay the R160,000 and R66,000 to the mother. The ruling illustrates how pension funds can be drawn into maintenance enforcement where arrears remain unpaid.
The dispute dates to January 2020, when the mother instituted divorce proceedings and applied for maintenance. In June 2020, the court ordered the father, then a permanent prosecutor with the National Prosecuting Authority, to pay child maintenance, clothing allowances, school fees, medical expenses and contributions towards the mother's legal costs. According to court documents, he did not comply. His employment ended at the end of 2022. In February 2024, arrears maintenance of R160,000 was settled, with the GEPF ordered to pay that amount into the mother's account. That sum was never paid, and the 2024 settlement did not address the children's future maintenance.
In May 2025, the maintenance court issued a further order against the GEPF for R66,000 in future maintenance, which was also never paid. The same order required the father to pay R2,500 per child monthly, starting 30 June 2026, along with R3,000 per child in clothing costs twice a year and the children's school fees. The mother's evidence that the father had failed to pay throughout was uncontested. Judge Johannes Daffue noted that the Fund had made no payments under the maintenance orders, leaving money meant for the children with the respondent.
The father argued that he could not pay maintenance or school fees because the GEPF refused to release his pension benefits during the court applications. He also contended that the mother was not entitled to further claims, as she had already received 50% of his pension fund under the divorce order. Judge Daffue rejected this, noting that the R160,000 and R66,000 amounts ordered by the maintenance court had never been paid, and that the father had failed to set out his income and expenditure or explain why he could not pay without a GEPF payout.
The judge urged the maintenance court to expedite its processes and said there was "no reason" the Fund should not immediately pay the R160,000 and R66,000 to the mother. The ruling illustrates how pension funds can be drawn into maintenance enforcement where arrears remain unpaid.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.