SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this
document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 042122/2023
DATE: 15-04-2025
(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO.
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES / NO.
(3) REVISED.
DATE 15/4/2025
SIGNATURE 10
In the matter between
T[...] N[...] Applicant
and
T[...] N[...] Respondent
J U D G M E N T 20
VAN DE VENTER , AJ : In this matter of T[...] N[...] and
T[...] N[...] , matter number 3 on my opposed roll, I give this
judgment ex tempore .
This application of contempt has its origin on
19 June 2024 where a Rule 43 order was made that the
respondent has to pay an amount of R22 061.20 per month
for maintenance.
This application is dated 20 August 2024, a mere
two months after the court order. Because of the time 30
lapses and rolls of this division, the matter was only heard
today, 10 months after the first order given.
The respondent answered on 21 November 2024
and will, and until today his contentions are that his
earnings were erroneously present ed to the erstwhile court.
This court accepted this and having regard to the facts that
all the papers were filed and the applicant and the
respondent has answered and the applicant replied to the
counterclaim, the court allowed arguments to the effect from
both parties.
Let us deal with the contempt first. The applicant 10
has the right to bring the contempt order, the reasons are
clear and the respondent did not comply with the order.
The court however on the facts accepted that there was an
error in his earnings which the net salary at the time of the
Rule 43 was not 48 500, but an amount of R34 719. This
amount being 30 percent less.
In the absence of full compliance on the Rule 43(6)
of the court application and for the sake of finality, both
parties made submissions on affordability and the financial
positions of the parties. That was allowed by the court. 20
It is clear that the respondent from day one could
not afford the maintenance and the court is inclined to
accept that the applicant also knew this fact, because why
bring this application of contempt a merely two months after
the order?
Therefore, this court finds that the respondent is
not in contempt. The respondent is in arrears for 10
months, only being able to pay R3 000 maintenance during
this time. According to the calculation of the court, this
amount is R217 612. The R3 000 is deducted from the 30
amount, it is 10 months, and this amount is payable to the
applicant in the amount of R700 per month.
The respondent has also shown that his income is
less at the time of the Rule 43, than at the time of the Rule
43 order. It is a calculation of 30 percent less than the
amount used by the Rule 43 court.
This court believes a variation is necessary. This
court then orders that the maintenance amount be reduced
to R15 442.84 per month pending the finalisation of the
divorce from 1 May 2025 and the costs for this application
and the counter -application to be costs in the cause.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
…………………………
VAN DE VENTER , AJ 10
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
DATE : ……………….