Key Takeaways
- • The Free State High Court ordered the Government Employees' Pension Fund (GEPF) to withhold R426,000 of a former prosecutor's pension benefits while maintenance proceedings for his children are finalised, per the court order in NCLK v MTK and Another handed down on 23 October 2026.
- • Judge JP Daffue found the father had repeatedly failed to meet maintenance obligations and did not explain why he could not pay maintenance and school fees without his pension money, which he did not itemise.
- • The mother had sought to block R607,400; the court granted a smaller amount, and the order prevents payment to the father without directing the GEPF to transfer funds to the mother.
- • The judge declined to direct payment of outstanding arrears of R160,000 and an advance payment of R66,000 to the mother, leaving enforcement of those maintenance court orders to the maintenance court, with a route back to the High Court if they are not enforced.
- • The ruling reinforces that pension benefits can be protected to secure maintenance where a parent persistently defaults, though such orders are not automatic and depend on evidence of the amount reasonably required.
Summary
The Free State High Court has ordered the Government Employees' Pension Fund (GEPF) to withhold R426,000 of a former prosecutor's pension benefits while maintenance proceedings involving his children are finalised, according to a report published by Moonstone Information Refinery. The ruling, in NCLK v MTK and Another and handed down on 23 October 2026, was delivered by Judge JP Daffue. The order prevents payment to the father but does not direct the GEPF to transfer the money to the mother, and the father was ordered to pay the mother's costs.
The dispute dates to January 2020, when the mother instituted divorce proceedings while both children were minors. In June 2020 the High Court ordered the father, then employed by the National Prosecuting Authority, to pay R1,500 per child per month, along with clothing, school fees, extracurricular costs and medical expenses. He did not comply, and his employment ended in late 2022. The divorce was finalised in October 2023, with maintenance referred to the maintenance court. A May 2023 rule nisi restricted GEPF payments to the father, and a February 2024 order required R160,000 in arrear maintenance to be paid to the mother before the restriction would lift. That payment was never made. On 29 May 2025 the maintenance court ordered a further R66,000 in advance maintenance, also unpaid, and set new monthly obligations of R2,500 per child with payments due from 30 June 2026.
The mother, after being told in August 2025 that the maintenance court could not take the matter further, approached the High Court to prevent payment of R607,400 of the father's benefits. Judge Daffue found the father's claim that the fund's refusal had prevented him from meeting his obligations was unsupported by any account of his income or expenditure. He also noted the father's argument that a divorce order had already awarded the mother 50% of his pension benefit, and that his legal representative conceded he could not object to the two outstanding maintenance amounts being paid to the mother. The judge declined to order that payment, because it had not been requested in the application and the GEPF had not been heard on it.
In his reasoning, the judge weighed Section 37A(1) of the Pension Funds Act, which generally protects pension benefits from attachment, against Section 26(4) of the Maintenance Act, which permits attachment to satisfy maintenance orders. He relied on earlier judgments recognising that pension benefits can be protected to secure future maintenance and on Constitutional Court authority requiring effective remedies. Because the older daughter had recently turned 18 and the younger child was 14, he considered R100,000 sufficient for at least one additional year of future maintenance, and the court set the order at R426,000 pending finalisation of the Bloemfontein maintenance proceedings.
The judgment leaves the R160,000 and R66,000 amounts for the maintenance court to enforce, and Judge Daffue said the mother may return to the High Court if those orders are not enforced. Other outlets, including IOL, reported the figure as R326,000; the primary report and the court order reference R426,000.
The dispute dates to January 2020, when the mother instituted divorce proceedings while both children were minors. In June 2020 the High Court ordered the father, then employed by the National Prosecuting Authority, to pay R1,500 per child per month, along with clothing, school fees, extracurricular costs and medical expenses. He did not comply, and his employment ended in late 2022. The divorce was finalised in October 2023, with maintenance referred to the maintenance court. A May 2023 rule nisi restricted GEPF payments to the father, and a February 2024 order required R160,000 in arrear maintenance to be paid to the mother before the restriction would lift. That payment was never made. On 29 May 2025 the maintenance court ordered a further R66,000 in advance maintenance, also unpaid, and set new monthly obligations of R2,500 per child with payments due from 30 June 2026.
The mother, after being told in August 2025 that the maintenance court could not take the matter further, approached the High Court to prevent payment of R607,400 of the father's benefits. Judge Daffue found the father's claim that the fund's refusal had prevented him from meeting his obligations was unsupported by any account of his income or expenditure. He also noted the father's argument that a divorce order had already awarded the mother 50% of his pension benefit, and that his legal representative conceded he could not object to the two outstanding maintenance amounts being paid to the mother. The judge declined to order that payment, because it had not been requested in the application and the GEPF had not been heard on it.
In his reasoning, the judge weighed Section 37A(1) of the Pension Funds Act, which generally protects pension benefits from attachment, against Section 26(4) of the Maintenance Act, which permits attachment to satisfy maintenance orders. He relied on earlier judgments recognising that pension benefits can be protected to secure future maintenance and on Constitutional Court authority requiring effective remedies. Because the older daughter had recently turned 18 and the younger child was 14, he considered R100,000 sufficient for at least one additional year of future maintenance, and the court set the order at R426,000 pending finalisation of the Bloemfontein maintenance proceedings.
The judgment leaves the R160,000 and R66,000 amounts for the maintenance court to enforce, and Judge Daffue said the mother may return to the High Court if those orders are not enforced. Other outlets, including IOL, reported the figure as R326,000; the primary report and the court order reference R426,000.
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.