Bursey v Bursey and Another

The appellant and first respondent were divorced in October 1994. The divorce order incorporated a settlement agreement obliging the appellant to pay maintenance of R750 per month per child for their two sons, John and Kevin, until they became self-supporting. At the time of divorce John was already over 19 and a university student. When John turned 21 in March 1996, the appellant stopped paying maintenance for him, contending that his obligation ceased upon John attaining majority. This led to various proceedings, including small claims and maintenance court actions, and ultimately to the issue of a writ of execution against the appellant’s property for arrear maintenance. The appellant applied to have the writ set aside. The High Court granted the application, but the Full Court overturned that decision. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The case clarifies that maintenance orders in divorce proceedings may validly extend beyond a child’s majority where the order expressly provides for maintenance until self-supporting. It affirms that majority alone does not terminate a maintenance obligation and provides authoritative guidance on the interpretation and enforcement of divorce maintenance orders.