Shaidat Aroyewun v Nurudeen Babatunde Aroyewun

The parties are married and involved in pending, acrimonious divorce proceedings. A Rule 43 order granted on 13 July 2021 directed the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of R22 000 to the applicant. The respondent fell into arrears, initially alleged at R88 000 and later stated to be R294 500. The applicant launched an urgent application seeking to have the respondent held in contempt of court for non-compliance, payment of arrear maintenance, committal to imprisonment in default of payment, and costs on an attorney-and-client scale. The respondent admitted the existence of the order and the arrears but denied willful and mala fide non-compliance, alleging financial hardship despite being a medical doctor. He claimed to have taken steps to comply, including selling vehicles, attempting to access pension benefits, seeking additional bond finance, and placing immovable properties on the market to liquidate the arrears.

The application to hold the respondent in contempt of court was dismissed. The respondent was ordered to pay R30 000 per month on or before the seventh day of each month until the arrears amounting to R294 500 are fully paid. The issue of costs was held over for determination in the divorce proceedings.

The judgment reinforces the strict requirements for civil contempt in South African law, particularly the need to prove willfulness and mala fides beyond reasonable doubt. It illustrates that bona fide financial difficulty, coupled with genuine efforts to comply, can defeat a contempt application even where non-compliance is admitted. The case also demonstrates the court’s willingness to craft pragmatic remedial orders to address maintenance arrears without resorting to punitive measures.