The parties were formerly married and had a minor child. Their divorce order incorporated a settlement agreement regulating guardianship, care, contact and maintenance. The applicant (father) undertook to pay a basic monthly maintenance amount, escalated annually, and to contribute 50% towards the child’s educational and medical expenses. The applicant persistently failed to comply with these maintenance obligations. After the respondent returned from the United States, she caused a warrant of execution to be issued for alleged arrears exceeding R300 000. A nulla bona return was issued in respect of movable property, whereafter the respondent applied under rule 46(1)(a)(ii) to execute against the applicant’s immovable property. The High Court authorised execution. The applicant unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal in the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, and then approached the Constitutional Court, despite conceding that he was substantially in arrears with undisputed basic maintenance and continuing to default even during the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs in the Constitutional Court on an attorney-and-client scale, excluding costs related to the postponement of 29 August 2017.
The case underscores the Constitutional Court’s firm stance on enforcement of maintenance orders and compliance with court orders generally. It affirms that litigants who remain in persistent default of maintenance obligations risk being denied access to appellate relief. The judgment reinforces the constitutional principle that a child’s best interests are paramount and highlights the courts’ inherent power to protect their integrity and authority, including through punitive cost orders.