What is the Status of Muslim Marriage in South Africa?

Women’s Legal Centre Trust v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT 24/21) [2022] ZACC 23; 2022 (5) SA 323 (CC); 2023 (1) BCLR 80 (CC) (28 June 2022)

In the case of Women’s Legal Centre Trust v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT 24/21) [2022] ZACC 23; 2022 (5) SA 323 (CC); 2023 (1) BCLR 80 (CC) (28 June 2022), the Constitutional Court deal with an issue relating to Muslim Marriage. The parties in the case where the following:

WOMEN’S LEGAL CENTRE TRUST                                              Applicant

and

PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA                First Respondent

MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL

DEVELOPMENT                                                                            Second Respondent

MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS                                                    Third Respondent

SPEAKER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY                                 Fourth Respondent

CHAIRPERSON OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL

OF PROVINCES                                                                             Fifth Respondent

SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION                     Sixth Respondent

COMMISSION FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION

OF THE RIGHTS OF CULTURAL, RELIGIOUS

AND LINGUISTIC COMMUNITIES                                                Seventh Respondent

LAJNATUN NISAA-IL MUSLIMAAT (ASSOCIATION

OF MUSLIM WOMEN OF SOUTH AFRICA)                                 Eighth Respondent

and

COMMISSION FOR GENDER EQUALITY                                   Intervening Party

and

MUSLIM ASSEMBLY CAPE                                                         First Amicus Curiae

UNITED ULAMA COUNCIL OF SOUTH AFRICA                        Second Amicus Curiae

The Constitutional Court gave the following ruling:

“On application for confirmation of an order of constitutional invalidity granted by the Supreme Court of Appeal: 1. The Supreme Court of Appeal’s order of constitutional invalidity is confirmed: 1.1. The Marriage Act 25 of 1961 (Marriage Act) and the Divorce Act 70 of 1979 (Divorce Act) are declared to be inconsistent with sections 9, 10, 28 and 34 of the Constitution in that they fail to recognise marriages solemnised in accordance with Sharia law (Muslim marriages) which have not been registered as civil marriages, as valid marriages for all purposes in South Africa, and to regulate the consequences of such recognition. 1.2. It is declared that section 6 of the Divorce Act is inconsistent with sections 9, 10, 28(2) and 34 of the Constitution, insofar as it fails to provide for mechanisms to safeguard the welfare of minor or dependent children born of Muslim marriages, at the time of dissolution of the Muslim marriage in the same or similar manner as it provides for mechanisms to safeguard the welfare of minor or dependent children born of other marriages that are dissolved. 1.3. It is declared that section 7(3) of the Divorce Act is inconsistent with sections 9, 10, and 34 of the Constitution, insofar as it fails to provide for the redistribution of assets, on the dissolution of a Muslim marriage, when such redistribution would be just. 1.4. It is declared that section 9(1) of the Divorce Act is inconsistent with sections 9, 10 and 34 of the Constitution, insofar as it fails to make provision for the forfeiture of the patrimonial benefits of a Muslim marriage at the time of its dissolution in the same or similar terms as it does in respect of other marriages that are dissolved. 1.5. The common law definition of marriage is declared to be inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid to the extent that it excludes Muslim marriages. 1.6. The declarations of invalidity in paragraphs 1.1 to 1.5 above are suspended for a period of 24 months to enable the President and Cabinet, together with Parliament, to remedy the foregoing defects by either amending existing legislation, or initiating and passing new legislation within 24 months, in order to ensure the recognition of Muslim marriages as valid marriages for all purposes in South Africa and to regulate the consequences arising from such recognition. 1.7. Pending the coming into force of legislation or amendments to existing legislation referred to in paragraph 1.6, it is declared that Muslim marriages subsisting at 15 December 2014, being the date when this action was instituted in the High Court, or which had been terminated in terms of Sharia law as at 15 December 2014, but in respect of which legal proceedings have been instituted and which proceedings have not been finally determined as at the date of this order, may be dissolved in accordance with the Divorce Act as follows: (a) all the provisions of the Divorce Act shall be applicable, save that all Muslim marriages shall be treated as if they are out of community of property, except where there are agreements to the contrary, and (b) the provisions of section 7(3) of Divorce Act shall apply to such a union regardless of when it was concluded. (c) In the case of a husband who is a spouse in more than one Muslim marriage, the court: (i) shall take into consideration all relevant factors, including any contract or agreement between the relevant spouses, and must make any equitable order that it deems just; and (ii) may order that any person who in the court’s opinion has a sufficient interest in the matter be joined in the proceedings. 1.8. Pending the coming into force of legislation or amendments to existing legislation referred to in paragraph 1.6, it is declared that, from the date of this order, section 12(2) of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 applies to a prospective spouse in a Muslim marriage concluded after the date of this order. 1.9. Pending the coming into force of legislation or amendments to existing legislation referred to in paragraph 1.6, for the purpose of paragraph 1.8 above, the provisions of sections 3(1)(a), 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b), 3(4)(a) and 3(4)(b), and 3(5) of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to Muslim marriages. 1.10. If administrative or practical problems arise in the implementation of this order, any interested person may approach this Court for a variation of this order. 1.11. The Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development shall publish a summary of the orders in paragraphs 1.1 to 1.10 above widely in newspapers and on radio stations, whichever is feasible, without delay. 2. The conditional cross appeal by the Women’s Legal Centre Trust, and the appeals by the South African Human Rights Commission and Commission for Gender Equality are dismissed. 3. The President and the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development must pay the Women’s Legal Centre Trust’s costs of this application, including the costs of two counsel.”

Status of Muslim Marriages in South Africa

Considering the latter judgment, Muslim Marriages are seen as valid marriages. However, the South African legal framework needs to be changed to allow for its incorporation.

What is the Status of Muslim Marriage in South Africa?

Women’s Legal Centre Trust v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT 24/21) [2022] ZACC 23; 2022 (5) SA 323 (CC); 2023 (1) BCLR 80 (CC) (28 June 2022)

In the case of Women’s Legal Centre Trust v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT 24/21) [2022] ZACC 23; 2022 (5) SA 323 (CC); 2023 (1) BCLR 80 (CC) (28 June 2022), the Constitutional Court deal with an issue relating to Muslim Marriage. The parties in the case where the following:

WOMEN’S LEGAL CENTRE TRUST                                              Applicant

and

PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA                First Respondent

MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL

DEVELOPMENT                                                                            Second Respondent

MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS                                                    Third Respondent

SPEAKER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY                                 Fourth Respondent

CHAIRPERSON OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL

OF PROVINCES                                                                             Fifth Respondent

SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION                     Sixth Respondent

COMMISSION FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION

OF THE RIGHTS OF CULTURAL, RELIGIOUS

AND LINGUISTIC COMMUNITIES                                                Seventh Respondent

LAJNATUN NISAA-IL MUSLIMAAT (ASSOCIATION

OF MUSLIM WOMEN OF SOUTH AFRICA)                                 Eighth Respondent

and

COMMISSION FOR GENDER EQUALITY                                   Intervening Party

and

MUSLIM ASSEMBLY CAPE                                                         First Amicus Curiae

UNITED ULAMA COUNCIL OF SOUTH AFRICA                        Second Amicus Curiae

The Constitutional Court gave the following ruling:

“On application for confirmation of an order of constitutional invalidity granted by the Supreme Court of Appeal:

1. The Supreme Court of Appeal’s order of constitutional invalidity is confirmed:

1.1. The Marriage Act 25 of 1961 (Marriage Act) and the Divorce Act 70 of 1979 (Divorce Act) are declared to be inconsistent with sections 9, 10, 28 and 34 of the Constitution in that they fail to recognise marriages solemnised in accordance with Sharia law (Muslim marriages) which have not been registered as civil marriages, as valid marriages for all purposes in South Africa, and to regulate the consequences of such recognition.

1.2. It is declared that section 6 of the Divorce Act is inconsistent with sections 9, 10, 28(2) and 34 of the Constitution, insofar as it fails to provide for mechanisms to safeguard the welfare of minor or dependent children born of Muslim marriages, at the time of dissolution of the Muslim marriage in the same or similar manner as it provides for mechanisms to safeguard the welfare of minor or dependent children born of other marriages that are dissolved.

1.3. It is declared that section 7(3) of the Divorce Act is inconsistent with sections 9, 10, and 34 of the Constitution, insofar as it fails to provide for the redistribution of assets, on the dissolution of a Muslim marriage, when such redistribution would be just.

1.4. It is declared that section 9(1) of the Divorce Act is inconsistent with sections 9, 10 and 34 of the Constitution, insofar as it fails to make provision for the forfeiture of the patrimonial benefits of a Muslim marriage at the time of its dissolution in the same or similar terms as it does in respect of other marriages that are dissolved.

1.5. The common law definition of marriage is declared to be inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid to the extent that it excludes Muslim marriages.

1.6. The declarations of invalidity in paragraphs 1.1 to 1.5 above are suspended for a period of 24 months to enable the President and Cabinet, together with Parliament, to remedy the foregoing defects by either amending existing legislation, or initiating and passing new legislation within 24 months, in order to ensure the recognition of Muslim marriages as valid marriages for all purposes in South Africa and to regulate the consequences arising from such recognition.

1.7. Pending the coming into force of legislation or amendments to existing legislation referred to in paragraph 1.6, it is declared that Muslim marriages subsisting at 15 December 2014, being the date when this action was instituted in the High Court, or which had been terminated in terms of Sharia law as at 15 December 2014, but in respect of which legal proceedings have been instituted and which proceedings have not been finally determined as at the date of this order, may be dissolved in accordance with the Divorce Act as follows:

(a) all the provisions of the Divorce Act shall be applicable, save that all Muslim marriages shall be treated as if they are out of community of property, except where there are agreements to the contrary, and

(b) the provisions of section 7(3) of Divorce Act shall apply to such a union regardless of when it was concluded.

(c) In the case of a husband who is a spouse in more than one Muslim marriage, the court:

(i) shall take into consideration all relevant factors, including any contract or agreement between the relevant spouses, and must make any equitable order that it deems just; and

(ii) may order that any person who in the court’s opinion has a sufficient interest in the matter be joined in the proceedings.

1.8. Pending the coming into force of legislation or amendments to existing legislation referred to in paragraph 1.6, it is declared that, from the date of this order, section 12(2) of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 applies to a prospective spouse in a Muslim marriage concluded after the date of this order.

1.9. Pending the coming into force of legislation or amendments to existing legislation referred to in paragraph 1.6, for the purpose of paragraph 1.8 above, the provisions of sections 3(1)(a), 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b), 3(4)(a) and 3(4)(b), and 3(5) of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to Muslim marriages.

1.10. If administrative or practical problems arise in the implementation of this order, any interested person may approach this Court for a variation of this order.

1.11. The Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development shall publish a summary of the orders in paragraphs 1.1 to 1.10 above widely in newspapers and on radio stations, whichever is feasible, without delay.

2. The conditional cross appeal by the Women’s Legal Centre Trust, and the appeals by the South African Human Rights Commission and Commission for Gender Equality are dismissed.

3. The President and the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development must pay the Women’s Legal Centre Trust’s costs of this application, including the costs of two counsel.”

Status of Muslim Marriages in South Africa

Considering the latter judgment, Muslim Marriages are seen as valid marriages. However, the South African legal framework needs to be changed to allow for its incorporation.

Related Post

[caption id="attachment_10837" align="alignnone" width="654"]Relocation consent Court Order for minor child to Spain - Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf Relocation consent Court Order for minor child to Spain – Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf[/caption]

I want to relocate from South Africa to Spain with my minor child. The other parent does not want my child to relocate to Spain. What can I do?

Spain is a popular destination to emigrate to. People emigrate from South Africa for many reasons. It ranges from better employment opportunities, family relations, or for a better standard of living. Whatever the reason a parent wants to relocate to Spain, if a minor child will be joining that parent and also relocating to Spain, then the parent remaining in South Africa’s consent would usually be required. Let us unpack the legal issues a parent may encounter when wanting to emigrate to Spain. Before we do so, let us list the various cities and towns in Spain to which you may want to relocate: Andalusia, Almería, Almería, Cádiz, Algeciras, Arcos de la Frontera, Cádiz, Chiclana de la Frontera, El Puerto de Santa María, Jerez de la Frontera, La Línea, Puerto Real, San Fernando, Sanlúcar de Barrameda, Córdoba, Bujalance, Cabra, Córdoba, Lucena, Montilla, Peñarroya-Pueblonuevo, Priego de Córdoba, Puente-Genil, Granada, Andújar, Baza, Granada, Guadix, Motril, Huelva, Huelva, Jaén, Jaén, Linares, Martos, Úbeda, Málaga, Antequera, Coín, Málaga, Melilla, Ronda, Sevilla, Alcalá de Guadaira, Carmona, Dos Hermanas, Ecija, Lebrija, Lora del Río, Marchena, Morón de la Frontera, Osuna, Sevilla, Utrera, Aragon, Huesca, Huesca, Jaca, Teruel, Teruel, Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Asturias, Avilés, Cabañaquinta, Cangas de Narcea, Covadonga, Gijón, Luarca, Mieres, Oviedo, Pola de Siero, San Martín del Rey Aurelio, Tineo, Villaviciosa, Balearic Islands, Palma, Maó, Basque Country, Álava, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Guipúzcoa, Donostia–San Sebastián, Eibar, Irun, Vizcaya, Barakaldo, Bilbao, Getxo, Guernica, Portugalete, Santurtzi, Sestao, Canary Islands, Las Palmas, Arucas, Las Palmas, Telde, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, La Orotava, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Cantabria, Santander, Torrelavega, Castile–La Mancha, Albacete, Albacete, Hellín, Villarrobledo, Ciudad Real, Alcázar de San Juan, Almadén, Ciudad Real, Puertollano, Tomelloso, Valdepeñas, Cuenca, Cuenca, Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Toledo, Talavera de la Reina, Toledo, Castile–León, Ávila, Ávila, Burgos, Burgos, Miranda de Ebro, León, Astorga, León, Ponferrada, Palencia, Palencia, Salamanca, Ciudad Rodrigo, Salamanca, Segovia, San Ildefonso, Segovia, Soria, Soria, Valladolid, Simancas, Valladolid, Zamora, Toro, Zamora, Catalonia, Barcelona, Badalona, Barcelona, Cornellà, Granollers, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Manresa, Mataró, Reus, Sabadell, Santa Coloma de Gramenet, Terrassa, Vic, Vilanova i la Geltrú, Girona, Girona, Llívia, Lleida, Lleida, Tarragona, Tarragona, Tortosa, Ceuta (autonomous city), Extremadura, Badajoz, Almendralejo, Badajoz, Don Benito, Mérida, Villanueva de la Serena, Cáceres, Alcántara, Cáceres, Guadalupe, Plasencia, Trujillo, Galicia, A Coruña, A Coruña, Carballo, Ferrol, Ortigueira, Ribeira, Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, Lugo, Mondoñedo, Monforte de Lemos, Vilalba, Ourense, Ourense, Vigo, Vilagarcía de Arousa, Pontevedra, Pontevedra, Madrid, Alcalá de Henares, Aranjuez, El Escorial, Getafe, Madrid, Melilla, Murcia, Caravaca, Cartagena, Cieza, Jumilla, Lorca, Murcia, Yecla, Navarra, Funes, Pamplona, Roncesvalles, La Rioja, Calahorra, Logroño, Valencia, Alicante, Alcoy, Alicante, Elche, Elda, Orihuela, Villena, Castellón, Castellón de la Plana, Villarreal, Valencia, Alzira, Gandía, Requena, Sagunto, Sueca, Torrent, Valencia. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/list-of-cities-and-towns-in-Spain-2041711)  

Why do I require the other parent’s Consent to relocate to Spain?

According to South African law, if you are a co-holder of parental responsibilities and rights over your minor child, you must consent to your child leaving South Africa. In this case, relocating to Spain. Here we refer to section 18 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005. The entire provision is as follows: 18 Parental responsibilities and rights  (1) A person may have either full or specific parental responsibilities and rights in respect of a child.  (2) The parental responsibilities and rights that a person may have in respect of a child, include the responsibility and the right-  (a) to care for the child;  (b) to maintain contact with the child;  (c) to act as guardian of the child; and  (d) to contribute to the maintenance of the child.  (3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), a parent or other person who acts as guardian of a child must-  (a) administer and safeguard the child’s property and property interests;  (b) assist or represent the child in administrative, contractual and other legal matters; or  (c) give or refuse any consent required by law in respect of the child, including-  (i) consent to the child’s marriage;  (ii) consent to the child’s adoption;  (iii) consent to the child’s departure or removal from the Republic;  (iv) consent to the child’s application for a passport; and  (v) consent to the alienation or encumbrance of any immovable property of the child.  (4) Whenever more than one person has guardianship of a child, each one of them is competent, subject to subsection (5), any other law or any order of a competent court to the contrary, to exercise independently and without the Consent of the other any right or responsibility arising from such guardianship. (5) Unless a competent court orders otherwise, the Consent of all the persons that have guardianship of a child is necessary in respect of matters set out in subsection (3)(c). Now let us explain what Parental Responsibilities and Rights are.

What are Parental Responsibilities and Rights of a parent in relation to a child?

As can be seen from section 18(2) of the Children’s Act, when we refer to Parental Responsibilities and Rights, we refer to the following: (a) to care for the child;  (b) to maintain contact with the child;  (c) to act as guardian of the child; and  (d) to contribute to the maintenance of the child. Therefore, if a parent has parental responsibilities and rights over a minor child, and accordingly, rights of guardianship, their Consent is required when it comes to issues of guardianship. As seen from section 18(3)(c) of the Children’s Act above, both parents’ Consent is required should a minor child depart from the Republic of South Africa. In this case, to emigrate to Spain. Even if the minor child only wants to go for a short holiday to Spain, both guardians’ Consent would be required.

When would the other parent be seen as a guardian in the case of a relocation matter to Spain?

It must be noted that not all parents are legal guardians over their minor children. We should therefore distinguish between married or divorced parents and parents who were never married. As you would see below, usually married, or divorced parents’ Consent would be required for a minor child to relocate or emigrate to Spain. However, that does not automatically apply to parents who were never married. This could be because the child could have been born from a brief encounter and never met his or her father. It would not make sense that a parent who never met his or her 15-year-old child, should give Consent for relocation to Spain.

Mother’s Consent for relocation of the minor child to Spain

Section 19 of the Children’s Act deals with the Parental responsibilities and rights of mothers. It states the following: 19 Parental responsibilities and rights of mothers  (1) The biological mother of a child, whether married or unmarried, has full parental responsibilities and rights in respect of the child.  (2) If-  (a) the biological mother of a child is an unmarried child who does not have guardianship in respect of the child; and  (b) the biological father of the child does not have guardianship in respect of the child, the guardian of the child’s biological mother is also the guardian of the child.  (3) This section does not apply in respect of a child who is the subject of a surrogacy agreement. As seen from section 19(1) of the Children’s Act, in most cases involving the relocation of a minor child to Spain, the mother’s Consent is required as she has full parental responsibilities and rights over the minor child.

Married father’s Consent for the relocation of the minor child to Spain

Section 20 of the Children’s Act deals with Parental responsibilities and rights of married fathers. It states the following: 20 Parental responsibilities and rights of married fathers The biological father of a child has full parental responsibilities and rights in respect of the child- (a) if he is married to the child’s mother; or (b) if he was married to the child’s mother at (i) the time of the child’s conception; (ii) the time of the child’s birth; or (iii) any time between the child’s conception and birth. As can be seen from sections 20 (a) and (b) of the Children’s Act, if the father and the mother were married, or are married, then his Consent is required for the minor child to relocate to Spain. Of course, an exception to this would be should a court of law order otherwise. This would be the case should the parents be divorced and the divorce court ordered that only the mother may act as guardian. Next, we deal with the issue of an unmarried father’s Consent to relocate a minor child to Spain.

Consent of unmarried fathers for the relocation of their minor children to Spain.

Section 21 of the Children’s Act deals with parental responsibilities and rights of unmarried fathers. The section states the following: 21 Parental responsibilities and rights of unmarried fathers  (1) The biological father of a child who does not have parental responsibilities and rights in respect of the child in terms of section 20, acquires full parental responsibilities and rights in respect of the child-  (a) if at the time of the child’s birth he is living with the mother in a permanent life-partnership; or  (b) if he, regardless of whether he has lived or is living with the mother-  (i) consents to be identified or successfully applies in terms of section 26 to be identified as the child’s father or pays damages in terms of customary law;  (ii) contributes or has attempted in good faith to contribute to the child’s upbringing for a reasonable period; and  (iii) contributes or has attempted in good faith to contribute towards expenses in connection with the maintenance of the child for a reasonable period.  (2) This section does not affect the duty of a father to contribute towards the maintenance of the child.  (3) (a) If there is a dispute between the biological father referred to in subsection (1) and the biological mother of a child with regard to the fulfilment by that father of the conditions set out in subsection (1) (a) or (b), the matter must be referred for mediation to a family advocate, social worker, social service professional or other suitably qualified person.  (b) Any party to the mediation may have the outcome  of the mediation reviewed by a court.  (4) This section applies regardless of whether the child was born before or after the commencement of this Act. As can be seen from the latter sections, a father of a child born out of wedlock does not automatically have parental responsibilities and rights over his minor child. He may however acquire those parental responsibilities and rights over his minor child if he is materially involved in the child’s life. That would be where the father and the mother were in a permanent life partnership when the child was born or he is meaningfully involved in the child’s life, as outlined above. We shall not go into much detail regarding that. However, in most cases, if the father had regular contact with the child and paid child support, he would have acquired parental responsibilities and rights over the minor child.

What do you do if the other parent does not want to consent to the minor child relocating to Spain?

Suppose the other parent also has parental responsibilities and rights over the minor child, and he or she does not want to consent to the relocation of the minor child to Spain, then in such a case, the Court needs to be approached. Here I refer you back to section 18(5) of the Children’s Act referred to above where it states: (5) Unless a competent court orders otherwise, the Consent of all the persons that have guardianship of a child is necessary in respect of matters set out in subsection (3)(c). Therefore, after your Court Application has been launched an both sides have been heard, the Court would make the necessary Order. If you are successful in your application for the relocation of your minor children to Spain, then the Court will make an Order similar to that which is shown below. [caption id="attachment_10836" align="alignnone" width="667"]Relocation consent Court Order for minor child to Spain - Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf Relocation consent Court Order for minor child to Spain – Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf[/caption] [caption id="attachment_10837" align="alignnone" width="667"]Relocation consent Court Order for minor child to Spain - Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf Relocation consent Court Order for minor child to Spain – Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf[/caption]

I was unhappy with the decision of the Maintenance Court, so I appealed to the High Court of South Africa

I had a very terrible experience in the maintenance court recently. I am the mother of two minor children, ages seven and eight. They were both born and raised in South Africa. The father of my minor children has not been involved in their lives since they were very young. Soon after my second child was born, the father of my minor children went missing. All I had was the details of his sister. However, she also did not know where he was. Or at least that is what she told me.

I had to care for the minor children on my own

It is hard being a single parent. I had to attend to all their needs and expenses without the assistance of the biological father. This was very hard as a single parent. I had some help from my parents, but they are retired and have limited means. At least I saved on daycare costs, as they would collect and take the minor children to daycare while I was at work.

Finding the biological father via Facebook

Two years ago, I found out all the whereabouts of their biological father via social media. He posted pictures of himself attending a work function on Facebook.  I then approached the biological father through his work and asked him for assistance regarding the maintenance of the minor children. Both the minor children would have attended school the following year, and I would not have been able to pay the school fees alone.

The father’s refusal to pay child support

The father was adamant that he could not afford to pay child support and told me to apply for a childcare grant. He must have been earning a considerable income, seeing that he was working in a senior position at the company. Furthermore, as shown on his social media profile, he lived an extravagant life. I could not accept that the father was not willing to take any responsibility for the minor children.

Seeking legal assistance from a lawyer and the maintenance court

I then approached an attorney for assistance in obtaining child maintenance from the biological father. I could not afford the legal fees to assist me going forward, as I could not afford to pay for the minor children’s school expenses. I then approached the maintenance court for assistance, and on his advice, the maintenance clerk assisted me in launching an application for child maintenance against the biological father. The biological father was a party in the maintenance court proceedings, and we both appeared before the maintenance officer.

Father’s lack of co-operation

The biological father was not very cooperative in this matter. He did not provide his banking details and said he had not been working for a very long time. After I complained about the documentation he disclosed, the maintenance court instructed the maintenance investigator to investigate the biological father’s affairs. The investigator then found out that the father was earning a large income and had been working since I last saw him many years ago. The maintenance officer uncovered the father’s pay slips and bank statements, revealing his substantial income. The maintenance officer’s investigation revealed the father’s investments and assets, including an immovable property and two cars.

Formal maintenance enquiry – What a disappointment

The matter is then sent for a formal maintenance enquiry before a maintenance magistrate. This is where the problems occurred. The maintenance court never considered any of the information I provided them regarding the expenditure of the minor children. They mainly focused on my ability to care for the minor children and simultaneously disregarded the fact that the father earned much more and could maintain the minor children. The maintenance court wanted me to look after the needs of the minor children on my own and for the father to pay a small amount of maintenance towards the minor children. Once all the evidence had been presented to the maintenance magistrate, she ruled that the father would pay a small amount of maintenance towards minor children. Although the father earns much more than me, he was only ordered to pay approximately 10% of the minor children’s expenditure. I was very disappointed about this.

Taking the Maintenance Court on Appeal

I then again approached an attorney for legal assistance in this regard. All I could do was ask the attorney for advice regarding my case. The attorney advised me that, given the circumstances and the evidence presented, I should appeal the decision of the maintenance magistrate. This is what I did. I appealed on my own and requested reasons for the magistrate’s decision. The magistrate decided that because I earn a salary and the minor children live with me, I should pay most of the minor children’s expenditures. According to my attorney, this was not in line with the law and should not be allowed. The magistrate made a mistake when it ordered the father to pay only 10% of the minor children’s expenditure despite him earning much more than me.

Appealing the maintenance court decision to the High Court

The appeal proceeded to the High Court, where I was successful. The High Court reviewed the maintenance court’s evidence and concluded that the magistrate erred in his decision. The High Court further ordered that the biological father should pay for half of all the minor children’s expenditures. This included medical aid, educational expenses, and day-to-day expenses. I am very grateful to the High Court for assisting me in this matter and collecting the significant state’s decision.

Assistance with an Appeal to the High Court, Supreme Court of Appeal or the Constitutional Court

Should you require assistance with an appeal to the high court, Supreme Court of Appeal, or constitutional court, feel free to contact the firm of
Adv. Muhammad Abduroaf.      

Do you require a video legal advice consultation?

Click here and schedule one today!