Key Takeaways
- • The Free State High Court blocked the Government Employees' Pension Fund (GEPF) from paying R426,000 of a father's pension benefits while a maintenance dispute over his two minor children remains unresolved, according to Sowetan.
- • Judge Johannes Daffue found the father, identified only as Mr K, a former National Prosecuting Authority prosecutor whose employment ended in 2022, had repeatedly failed to honour maintenance orders, including while still employed.
- • The court rejected the mother's request to preserve R607,400, finding that amount was not properly justified, and instead ordered R426,000 held back.
- • The judgment cited the Maintenance Act and the Pension Funds Act working together to protect children, and the judge criticised parents who use legal processes to avoid maintenance obligations.
Summary
The Free State High Court has blocked a father identified only as Mr K from receiving R426,000 from his pension fund while a dispute over maintenance for his two minor children, born in 2008 and 2012, remains unresolved, according to Sowetan. The judgment was delivered by Judge Johannes Daffue and follows years of failed maintenance payments and repeated court orders that were not honoured. Mr K worked as a prosecutor for the National Prosecuting Authority until his employment ended in 2022.
The mother, Mrs K, approached the court after her former husband persistently failed to comply with maintenance obligations. She asked the court to interdict the GEPF from paying him R607,400 from his pension benefits pending finalisation of maintenance proceedings in the Bloemfontein maintenance court. The court found that the father had failed to pay maintenance even while still employed. In 2020 the high court had ordered him to make monthly payments, buy clothing for the children twice a year, and cover school fees and medical expenses. Although the couple's divorce was finalised in October 2023, further orders followed, including R160,000 in arrear maintenance and R66,000 for a year's future maintenance. The court heard that the pension fund had never paid either amount, and the father also failed to pay R2,500 monthly maintenance per child ordered in May 2025, as well as school fees.
Daffue was direct in his criticism, describing the father as "a recalcitrant father who has for many years neglected his children by refusing to pay towards their maintenance." The father argued he could not pay because the pension fund refused to release his benefits after the mother's application. Daffue rejected this, noting the respondent had failed to set out his income and expenditure or explain why payments could not be made without relying on a pay-out from the Fund. He said courts must be alive to maintenance defaulters who use legal processes to side-step their obligations.
While the mother sought R607,400 to be preserved, the judge found that amount had not been properly justified and instead ordered R426,000 held back: R160,000 for arrear maintenance, R66,000 for previously ordered future maintenance, and R100,000 to secure an additional year of maintenance. Citing section 28(2) of the constitution, Daffue said a child's best interests are of paramount importance. The GEPF has been interdicted from paying the R426,000 to the father pending the Bloemfontein maintenance court proceedings. Daffue also urged that court to expedite its processes and ensure the earlier R160,000 and R66,000 orders are enforced without delay, stating there was "no reason why the fund shall not forthwith pay to the applicant the amounts of R160,000 and R66,000."
The mother, Mrs K, approached the court after her former husband persistently failed to comply with maintenance obligations. She asked the court to interdict the GEPF from paying him R607,400 from his pension benefits pending finalisation of maintenance proceedings in the Bloemfontein maintenance court. The court found that the father had failed to pay maintenance even while still employed. In 2020 the high court had ordered him to make monthly payments, buy clothing for the children twice a year, and cover school fees and medical expenses. Although the couple's divorce was finalised in October 2023, further orders followed, including R160,000 in arrear maintenance and R66,000 for a year's future maintenance. The court heard that the pension fund had never paid either amount, and the father also failed to pay R2,500 monthly maintenance per child ordered in May 2025, as well as school fees.
Daffue was direct in his criticism, describing the father as "a recalcitrant father who has for many years neglected his children by refusing to pay towards their maintenance." The father argued he could not pay because the pension fund refused to release his benefits after the mother's application. Daffue rejected this, noting the respondent had failed to set out his income and expenditure or explain why payments could not be made without relying on a pay-out from the Fund. He said courts must be alive to maintenance defaulters who use legal processes to side-step their obligations.
While the mother sought R607,400 to be preserved, the judge found that amount had not been properly justified and instead ordered R426,000 held back: R160,000 for arrear maintenance, R66,000 for previously ordered future maintenance, and R100,000 to secure an additional year of maintenance. Citing section 28(2) of the constitution, Daffue said a child's best interests are of paramount importance. The GEPF has been interdicted from paying the R426,000 to the father pending the Bloemfontein maintenance court proceedings. Daffue also urged that court to expedite its processes and ensure the earlier R160,000 and R66,000 orders are enforced without delay, stating there was "no reason why the fund shall not forthwith pay to the applicant the amounts of R160,000 and R66,000."
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.