About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAGPJHC 302
|
|
Bell v Hogins and Another (146422/2025) [2026] ZAGPJHC 302 (23 March 2026)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO: 146422/2025
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED: NO
23
March 2026
In the matter between:
JORDAN GABRIEL
BELL
Applicant
and
TIMOTHY PAUL
HOGINS
First Respondent
ESME
BELL
Second Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mahosi, J
Introduction
[1] The applicant
seeks an order declaring that the first respondent is his biological
father and compelling him to continue
providing financial support
until he becomes self-supporting after completion of his tertiary
education. The first respondent opposed
the application.
[2] At the hearing
of the matter, the applicant brought an application for leave to file
a supplementary affidavit, which
the first respondent opposed. Rule
6(5)(e) enables the Court, in exercising its discretion, to permit
further affidavits. In this
matter, the supplementary affidavit is
necessary for the determination of the merits of the matter. In
addition, no prejudice would
be suffered by the first respondent, as
he was afforded an opportunity to file a further affidavit. As such,
the leave to file
the supplementary affidavit is granted.
The parties
[3] The applicant,
Jordan Gabriel Bell, is a 21-year-old man. The first respondent, Mr.
Timothy Paul Hogins, is the applicant’s
biological father. The
second respondent, Ms. Esme Bell, is the applicant's biological
mother.
Background
[4] In 2000, the
first and second respondents were involved in a romantic
relationship, which ended in September 2003, shortly
after the second
respondent discovered that she was pregnant with the applicant. The
second respondent gave birth to the applicant
in 2004, and they both
resided with the second respondent’s mother in Sandton.
[5] The first
respondent failed to provide financial maintenance for the applicant
until the second respondent, assisted by
her mother, instituted legal
proceedings against him. The parties settled the dispute out of
court, and the first respondent agreed
to make monthly contributions
of R1 500,00. This amount increased over time to R2 500,00 and
eventually to R3 500,00 per month.
The applicant was also maintained
on the first respondent's medical aid scheme. Despite the first
respondent's acceptance of his
parental responsibilities towards the
applicant, he was not named on the applicant's birth certificate.
[6]
In
2019,
the
first respondent enrolled the applicant at Weston Agricultural
College ("Weston"), a boarding school in Mooi River,
KwaZulu-Natal, for grades 9 to 10. The applicant's half-brother, the
first respondent's son from his marriage, also attended the
same
school, and the first respondent paid for tuition and boarding fees
for both of them.
[7]
In 2020,
when
t
he COVID-19 pandemic
began,
the applicant was visiting his family in Johannesburg on a school
holiday
. As a result of the
associated travel restrictions, he transferred to Tineo Online School
with the first respondent's knowledge
and consent.
During
this time, the second respondent lived in a flat in the Johannesburg
CBD with the applicant’s older sister. In September
2020, the
second respondent lost her employment as a receptionist at Armani
Spa, and they were forced to move again. Due to the
disruption caused
by the move to his studies, he temporarily moved in with the first
respondent at the start of November, at the
first respondent's
suggestion, to write his exams in a relatively stable environment
.
[8]
On 22 December 2020, the applicant
moved back in with the second respondent, who had secured new
employment and was able to rent
a flat in Davidsonville, Roodepoort.
In October of 2022, the second respondent lost her job again. As a
result, they moved in with
her boyfriend near Florida Lake shortly
before the applicant’s final exams. In January of 2023, the
applicant received his
poor matric results. He planned to rewrite
matric and began to make the necessary arrangements to do so.
[9] At the end of
January 2023, the applicant and the second respondent lost their
accommodation in Florida, and the second
respondent moved in with the
applicant’s sister and her partner. However, the applicant’s
sister's place was not large
enough to accommodate the applicant.
Resultantly, the applicant was left homeless and reached out to
several friends. From January
2023 until July 2023, he slept on
various friends' couches whilst working part-time and trying to study
to rewrite his matric.
[10] In August of
2023, the applicant contacted the first respondent and explained his
situation. Unimpressed with the applicant's
matric results, the first
respondent indicated that the applicant could only stay with his
family at the end of September 2023,
after his half-brother's matric
dance at Crawford College, where his half brother had subsequently
been enrolled. This affected
the applicant emotionally to an extent
that he consulted a psychologist at the end of August 2023 and was
immediately referred
for admission to Life Poortview Hospital, a
dedicated mental health facility specialising in general psychiatry,
where he stayed
for 21 days.
[11]
After his discharge, the applicant moved in with the first respondent
and his family from 28 October 2023 until February
2024, when he
commenced tertiary studies at Eduvos in Midrand,
studying towards a higher certificate in business management. During
his time at
Eduvos, the first respondent provided the applicant with
financial support, including a monthly cash allowance of R3 500.00,
a travel allowance of R600.00, tuition fees of R46 342.00,
monthly accommodation fees of R3 850,00, and medical aid.
[12] In July 2024,
the first respondent informed the applicant for the first time that
he doubted his paternity and requested
a DNA test. This communication
caused significant emotional distress to the applicant. The paternity
testing process was protracted.
The first test was
scheduled
for 13 August 2024, but it did not proceed at the applicant’s
request to attend to his health issues.
[13]
Correspondences between the parties’
attorneys were exchanged in an attempt to resolve the dispute.
In
a letter dated 17 September 2025, the first respondent offered
financial support to the applicant based on two conditions. The
first
option covers the applicant’s tertiary education, requiring him
to complete aptitude assessments within six weeks,
reside with the
second respondent, and provide regular academic progress reports.
Under this option, the first respondent will
pay all tuition and
related costs directly to the service providers, along with a monthly
living allowance of R5 700.00, and enroll
the applicant in a medical
aid scheme. If the applicant does not gain admission for 2026, the
monthly allowance will be provided
for six months. Should the
applicant fail any academic year, funding for further studies will
end, and a monthly allowance will
be provided for six months to
afford the applicant an opportunity to find employment. Additionally,
the first respondent may consider
buying a pre-owned vehicle at the
start of the third year if the applicant maintains a minimum average
of fifty-five percent over
the first two years and avoids excessive
socializing and alcohol consumption while living in shared student
accommodation.
[14] In the latter
dated 03 October 2025, the first respondent altered the first tender
by offering to R10 000.00 per month
for thirty-six months should the
applicant fail any of the years. He also made the second offer in
which he tendered to pay R10
000.00 per month for thirty-six months
in full and final settlement of all claims against him if the
applicant decides not to pursue
tertiary education.
[15] In addition,
the first respondent stated that he does not agree to the applicant
being allowed to retake the matriculation
exam, as he has already had
two opportunities to take it and was unsuccessful both times. He
emphasized that any tertiary education
institution chosen by the
applicant must accept him despite his failure to pass the matric exam
and his unsuccessful first year
at Eduvos.
[16]
The applicant did not accept the above options, and as such, the
dispute could not be resolved.
In
November 2024, the first respondent ceased all financial support to
the applicant. This prompted the applicant to bring this
application.
The applicant’s
case
[17] The applicant
is currently employed as a sales representative for Mercury Financial
Services, earning a salary of R4
500,00 per month. He resides with
his uncle and is self-funding a matric rewrite course through Skills
Academy, for R790.00 per
month. On the strength of the paternity test
results dated 8 September 2025, which confirmed that the first
respondent is his biological
father, the applicant contends that the
first respondent is obligated to support him until he is
self-supporting. He avers that
he requires financial support to
rewrite matric, complete his higher certificate at Eduvos, and
further his studies to ultimately
qualify with a bachelor's degree
and honors in business.
[18]
The
applicant contends
that the first respondent’s cessation
of financial support, which occurred before the DNA testing was
completed, left him
in financial distress. He claims that he
accumulated arrears with his landlord and Eduvos, and was ultimately
assisted by his uncle,
who provided accommodation and support. He
argues that
the maintenance contributions he
seeks are reasonable and within the first respondent's affordability.
The first respondent's
defence
[19] The first
respondent's opposition is primarily founded on the basis that the
applicant is a major, employed adult who
has failed to demonstrate a
need for maintenance. He contends that the applicant's academic
failures are attributable to his own
choices and lifestyle, including
following the misguided influence of the second respondent. In
addition, the first respondent
avers that the quantum claimed is
exorbitant and unsubstantiated. For the above reasons, the first
respondent argues that the applicant
has not discharged the onus of
proving his reasonable monthly expenses, and that he made a
reasonable settlement tender, which
the applicant rejected.
[20] The first
respondent raised the existence of a verbal agreement with the second
respondent that DNA testing would be
conducted when the applicant
turned eighteen. The second respondent disputes this agreement. The
first respondent further alleges
that the second respondent
misappropriated the applicant's maintenance funds for her own
benefit, that the applicant's family has
become dependent on his
support, and that the application is a collective effort to extort
money from him.
[21] On 17
September 2025, the first respondent made a tender offering to pay
for tertiary education at an appropriate institution
and a monthly
amount of R5 750,00 into the applicant's bank account, enroll the
applicant on his medical aid, purchase a suitable
pre-owned vehicle
at the commencement of the applicant's third year, subject to
academic performance, and provide support for six
months to find
employment if not accepted into tertiary studies. The tender was
conditional upon the applicant residing with the
second respondent in
Randfontein, submitting to aptitude testing, and maintaining
satisfactory academic progress. The applicant
rejected this tender as
insufficient and impractical.
Issue for
determination
[22] The central
issue for determination is whether the first respondent owes a duty
of support to the applicant, and if so,
the extent and duration of
such duty.
Legal framework
[23] The duty of
support owed by parents to their children is governed by both common
law and statute.
Section 18(2)(b)
of the
Children's Act 38 of 2005
provides that a parent has the responsibility to care for the child,
maintain contact with the child, act as a guardian of the
child, and
contribute to the maintenance of the child. While this section
primarily addresses minor children, the common law imposes
a duty of
support on parents to major children in certain circumstances.
[24]
In
Bursey
v Bursey and Another
[1]
,
the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) held that:
“
According
to our common law both divorced parents have a duty to maintain a
child of the dissolved marriage. The incidence of this
duty in
respect of each parent depends upon their relative means and
circumstances and the needs of the child from time to
time. The
duty does not terminate when the child reaches a particular age but
continues after majority.
(
In
re Estate Visser
1948
(3) SA 1129
(C) at 1133 4
;
Kemp
v Kemp
1958
(3) SA 736
(D) at 737
in
fine
;
Lamb v
Sack
1974
(2) SA 670
(T);
Hoffmann
v Herdan NO and Another
1982
(2) SA 274
(T) at 275A.) That the duty to maintain extends beyond
majority is recognised by
s 6
of the
Divorce Act 70 of 1979
.
Section
6(1)
(a)
provides
that a decree of divorce shall not be granted until the Court is
satisfied that the provisions made or contemplated with
regard to the
welfare of any minor or dependent child of the marriage are
satisfactory or are the best that can be effected in
the
circumstances.
Section 6(3)
provides that a Court granting a decree
of divorce may make any order which it deems fit in regard to the
maintenance of a dependent
child of the marriage. This provision must
be contrasted with the provision in the subsection relating to the
custody or guardianship
of, or access to, a minor child. A
maintenance order does not replace or alter a divorced parent's
common law duty to maintain
a child. In
Kemp
v Kemp (supra
)
Jansen J stated at 738A B that as a matter of expediency the Court,
as the upper guardian of the child, usually regulates the
incidence
of this duty as between the parents when it grants the divorce and
that its order for maintenance is ancillary to the
common law duty to
support.”
[25] The above
authority accentuates the fundamental obligation of maintenance. It
serves as a reminder of the courts’
mandate to uphold the legal
and financial responsibilities between parties, thereby safeguarding
the rights and well-being of dependent
children. Two primary factors
determine the quantum of maintenance. The first is the child's
circumstances and needs. The second
is the parents' means. In
determining reasonable needs, the court considers the standard of
living the child would have enjoyed
had the family unit remained
intact, as well as the child's actual requirements.
Evaluation
Paternity and duty of
support
[26] The paternity
test results conclusively establish that the first respondent is the
applicant's biological father. Thus,
any paternity dispute is now
moot.
[27] The first
respondent has, by his own admission, fulfilled the role of a father
throughout the applicant's life. He provided
financial support from
the applicant's infancy, maintained him on his medical aid, paid for
his schooling, and supported him through
periods of emotional
difficulty.
[28] In his
answering affidavit, the first respondent states that he
"took
care of the applicant in ways that were above and beyond the verbal
agreement and the initial maintenance arrangement."
The fact
that the first respondent now seeks to resile from this duty is
concerning. The parental obligation to support a child
is not a
voluntary undertaking that can be withdrawn at will. It is a legal
duty arising from the parent-child relationship.
[29]
As aforesaid, the duty to contribute to the maintenance of the child
extends to major children who are not yet self-supporting.
[2]
The applicant, at 21 years of age, is employed part-time, earning R4
500,00 per month. He resides with his uncle, who provides
accommodation and support out of kindness, not legal obligation. He
is attempting to improve his matric results to pursue tertiary
education. In these circumstances, the applicant cannot be considered
self-supporting.
The applicant's need
for maintenance
[30] The first
respondent contends that the applicant has failed to establish his
need for maintenance, pointing to the absence
of bank statements,
payslips, or a detailed breakdown of expenses. While it is correct
that the applicant's founding affidavit
could have provided greater
detail regarding his monthly expenses, the replying affidavit
attaches payslips confirming his monthly
income of R4 500,00. The
supplementary affidavit confirms that the applicant is enrolled with
Skills Academy for a matric rewrite,
paying R790.00 per month from
his salary.
[31] The
applicant's expenses are not difficult to infer. He requires
accommodation, food, clothing, transportation, and educational
materials. His current income is manifestly insufficient to meet
these basic needs, particularly if he is to pursue full-time studies.
The first respondent's own calculation of what he provided to the
applicant while studying at Eduvos totaled approximately R14
758,00
per month. This is a useful indicator of the applicant's reasonable
needs when engaged in full-time study.
[32] In light of
the above, this Court is satisfied that the applicant has
demonstrated a genuine need for maintenance. He
is a young adult
attempting to improve his qualifications and establish himself
independently. The fact that he is employed and
funding his own
matric rewrite demonstrates initiative and a desire to become
self-supporting, not indolence or entitlement.
Academic performance
and commitment
[33] The first
respondent places considerable emphasis on the applicant's academic
failures, suggesting that further investment
in his education would
be wasted. The applicant's academic record is admittedly not strong.
He obtained a diploma pass in matric
after combining his 2022 and
2023 results. He passed five subjects and failed six in his first
year at Eduvos.
[34] However, his
results are contextualized by several factors. Firstly, the
applicant's living circumstances during his
high school years were
unstable and lacking in parental supervision. He was, by his own
account,
"left to fend for myself"
during critical
periods. Secondly, the applicant suffered significant emotional
distress when the first respondent disputed his
paternity. This
disclosure, coming after 19 years of acceptance, was described by the
applicant as "
absolutely shattering
." The timing
coincided with his first year at Eduvos. Thirdly, the applicant's
mental health declined to the point of requiring
admission to Life
Poortview Hospital for 21 days of in-patient treatment in August and
September 2023. Fourthly, the first respondent's
own correspondence
with the applicant demonstrates a lack of empathy for the applicant's
emotional turmoil. The first respondent's
description of the
applicant as a "
Lokasie brakkies
" (township dog) and
instruction to "
man-up
" are not the words of a
supportive parent.
[35] Importantly,
the applicant is taking active steps to improve his academic
standing. He is currently enrolled with Skills
Academy to rewrite all
six matric subjects in May/June 2026 to obtain a bachelor's pass, and
he is funding this himself from his
modest salary. This demonstrates
commitment, not apathy.
[36] The first
respondent's tender, while ostensibly reasonable, imposes impractical
and potentially punitive conditions.
Requiring the applicant to
reside with the second respondent in Randfontein, when her
accommodation is not secure and the applicant
has previously
experienced instability living with her, is not a sustainable
arrangement. The condition that support would cease
entirely after
six months if the applicant cannot secure tertiary admission is also
unduly restrictive.
The parties' conduct
[37] The manner in
which the first respondent has conducted himself throughout these
proceedings is concerning. He disputed
paternity after 19 years of
acting as the applicant's father, communicating this through WhatsApp
in a manner the applicant described
as "
absolutely
shattering
." In addition, he withdrew his financial support
from the applicant, causing financial distress and delaying the
applicant's
receipt of Eduvos results.
[38] The first
respondent refused to postpone the paternity test scheduled for 13
August 2024 due to the applicant's illness,
interpreting it as an
attempt to delay the process. He then delayed rescheduling the test
without explanation. On 30 May 2025,
when the applicant arrived
without his identity document, the first respondent refused to
proceed, despite the applicant's uncle
offering to retrieve it
promptly. This inflexibility prolonged the applicant's uncertainty.
[39] The first
respondent's attorneys adopted an aggressive stance, threatening
punitive cost orders against the applicant
and his attorneys
personally. In addition, the first respondent's family members sent
the applicant deeply offensive communications,
suggesting he should
"
commit suicide"
, calling him a
"retard who
is bisexual"
, and stating
"you will never amount to
5% of who they are"
in reference to the first respondent's
other children. Although these communications were sent from an
unknown email address, their
content strongly suggests knowledge of
the proceedings that could only have come from the first respondent.
[40] The first
respondent sent a WhatsApp message to the applicant's uncle stating,
amongst other things,
"I will never love him as he's not mine
and never will be"
. This conduct is antithetical to the
parental role the first respondent has occupied for two decades. It
demonstrates a level of
hostility and rejection that is deeply
damaging to the applicant, who is, after all, his biological son.
Quantum of maintenance
[41] The first
respondent does not dispute his ability to pay maintenance. He is a
successful businessman, director of numerous
companies, and described
in media reports as a
"leading successful entrepreneur."
He has two sons with his wife, both of whom he maintains, and enjoys
a lifestyle that includes luxury vehicles, international holidays,
and private schooling for his children.
[42] The applicant
claims maintenance of approximately R10 000,00 per month plus
accommodation, transportation, medical aid,
and tertiary education
costs. This is broadly consistent with the R14 758.00 per month the
first respondent was previously paying.
The first respondent's tender
of R5 750,00 per month (excluding accommodation) is substantially
less than what he previously provided.
The condition that the
applicant resides with the second respondent is, as the applicant
submits, impractical. The second respondent's
accommodation is not
secure, she is unemployed, and the applicant has previously
experienced instability living with her.
[43] The Instagram
screenshots annexed as "FA21" depict the first respondent
and his family enjoying luxury branded
clothing, international
holidays, helicopter travel, luxury motor vehicles, and expensive
watches. The applicant's half-brother
is approximately the same age
as the applicant and, on the first respondent's own version, plays
professional rugby and runs two
companies.
[44] While the
applicant cannot reasonably expect to match every luxury enjoyed by
the first respondent's other children,
he is entitled to be
maintained at a level that enables him to pursue his education and
establish himself in life. The first respondent's
substantial means
should be applied to support his son, not merely to provide luxuries
for his other children.
[45] This Court is
satisfied that the amounts claimed by the applicant are reasonable in
the circumstances. However, some
flexibility is required to
accommodate the uncertainty regarding which tertiary institution the
applicant will ultimately attend
and what his accommodation costs
will be.
Conclusion
[46] This is a
disturbing matter. A young man, having been raised for 19 years by
the first respondent, a man he believed
to be his father, is told
that his paternity is in doubt. The subsequent DNA testing confirms
that he is, in fact, his biological
son. Yet rather than embracing
him, the first respondent has rejected him, ceased financial support,
and adopted a hostile stance
that has encouraged family members to
send abusive communications to the applicant.
[47] Despite these
challenges, the applicant is attempting to improve himself. He works
part-time, funds his own matric rewrite,
and seeks to pursue tertiary
education. He does not wish to be dependent on the first respondent
indefinitely, but he seeks only
the support necessary to become
self-sufficient. The applicant has made out a case for maintenance.
[48] The first
respondent, a man of substantial means, has a legal and moral
obligation to provide that support. His tender,
while containing
elements of reasonableness, is insufficient and imposes impractical
conditions.
[49]
In the circumstances, the following order is made:
Order
1. It is declared
that the first respondent has acquired full parental responsibilities
and rights in terms of
section 18
of the Children’s Act, 38 of
2005, and more specifically the parental responsibility to maintain
the applicant financially
until he is self-supporting.
2.
The first respondent shall make payment to the applicant of the R 2
000.00 enrolment fee and the monthly fees in the amount of
R790.00 in
respect of the applicant's enrolment at Skills Academy to rewrite his
matric in May /June 2026;
3.
The first
respondent shall pay the following maintenance to the applicant with
effect from 1 April 2026, and on or before the first
day of each
succeeding month thereafter:
3.1
The applicant's monthly accommodation cost of R6 500,00. For this
purpose, the first respondent shall
purchase the necessary, modest,
and basic furnishings required for the applicant’s
accommodation in the amount of R 20 000.00.
3.2
A monthly cash amount of R 5 500.00 to cover groceries, cell
phone expenses, clothing, toiletries,
and other necessities.
3.3
A monthly transportation cost of R 1 500 00.
3.4
The first respondent shall retain the applicant as a beneficiary on
his medical aid scheme or equivalent
scheme, and shall pay the
monthly premiums and any reasonable medical expenses not covered by
the scheme.
3.5
The first respondent shall pay all costs associated with the
applicant's tertiary education, including but
not limited to tuition
fees, registration fees, prescribed textbooks, stationery, and any
compulsory equipment required by the
tertiary institution. Such
payment shall be made directly to the relevant institution upon
presentation of a valid invoice.
4. The monthly
amounts referred to in paragraphs 3.1, 3.2, and 2.3 above shall
escalate annually on the anniversary date of
this order in accordance
with the Consumer Price Index.
5. The first
respondent's obligation to pay maintenance shall continue until the
earliest of:
5.1
The applicant completing a bachelor's degree and one year's honours
degree (or equivalent qualification)
in a field of study chosen by
him, provided that the applicant demonstrates reasonable academic
progress.
5.2
The applicant becomes self-supporting, defined as earning a gross
monthly income sufficient to meet
his reasonable needs without
parental assistance.
5.3
The applicant failing to make reasonable academic progress for two
consecutive years, provided that such failure
is not attributable to
circumstances beyond his control, including but not limited to
illness, disability, or other good cause
shown.
5.4
Should the applicant fail two consecutive years of his tertiary
education, the first respondent shall
continue to make payment to the
applicant in accordance with paragraphs 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 above
for a period of one year.
6. The applicant
shall provide the first respondent with copies of his academic
results at the end of each semester.
7. The first
respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application, including
the costs of counsel on Scale C.
D. Mahosi J
Judge of the High
Court
Gauteng
Division, Johannesburg
Date of hearing:
29 January 2026
Date of delivery:
23 March 2026
Delivered: This judgment
was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties'
representatives through email. The hand-down
date is deemed to be 23
March 2026.
Appearances
For the
applicant:
Advocate F. Bezuidenhout
Instructed
by:
Vanessa Fernihough and Associates
For the first
respondent: Advocate A. De Wet S.C.
Instructed
by:
Casper Le Roux Incorporated Attorneys
[1]
1999
(3) SA 33
(SCA), at 36D-H.
[2]
See
Bursey
v Bursey and Another
supra