A Cape Town father who reportedly receives over R1 million in annual bonuses, has challenged the mother of his children and refused to produce his proof of income.

The parents, who divorced in August 2010, have been at odds over financial responsibilities, as the mother continues to care for their children, aged 15 and 19.

In February 2025, the maintenance court ordered the father to pay R172,188.63, which, amongst other things, will go towards the tuition cost of their older child. The money had to be paid before the end of March 2025.

He was further ordered to pay over R20,000 towards the annual school fees of their second child. The total amount he had to pay was over R222,000.

However, following the court’s ruling, the father swiftly filed an urgent application in the Western Cape High Court to suspend the maintenance order. He argued that the amount was nearly double his net salary, asserting his financial inability to honour such payments.

The high court granted a temporary suspension of the order, while simultaneously requiring the mother to demonstrate why this suspension should not become permanent pending the appeal hearing.

The mother took further legal action, serving both the father and his employer with a subpoena duces tecum. A subpoena duces tecum is a court order requiring a person to appear in court and produce specific documents or other physical evidence relevant to a legal case. 

According to the mother, the father misled the court in his application to suspend the maintenance order. She argued that the maintenance court granted the order in line with what was provided by the father in terms of his monthly salary as well as his annual bonus which amounts to over R1 million.

She further argued that the father did not provide proof to support his claim that he cannot afford to pay maintenance. He also didn’t provide any evidence to support that his financial position had changed for the worse since the order was made.

Furthermore, she said the father lied in his affidavit as his IRP5 showed that he had received more than R1 million in March 2025. With this information, she sought to have the interim order suspending the maintenance order to be dismissed.

Furthermore, the mother highlighted discrepancies in the father’s affidavit, alleging that his IRP5 tax document, which revealed earnings exceeding R1 million as of March 2025, illustrates his capacity to pay the mandated maintenance while still maintaining a comfortable lifestyle.

In response, the father approached the high court again, seeking to have the subpoena set aside. He claimed the documents requested by the mother were irrelevant and warned that such disclosures would cause irreparable harm.

Presiding over the matter, Judge James Lekhuleni said the previous maintenance court order revealed that the mother battled to coerce the father to honour his maintenance obligations. He only provided financial support to the children when it suited him.

He commented on the mother’s diligent efforts, recognising that she was an unrepresented litigant trying to safeguard her children’s welfare. The judge made it clear that the mother’s attempts to compel the father to meet his obligations should not be viewed as an abuse of the legal system.

Moreover, judge Lekhuleni emphasised that denying the subpoena would unduly harm the mother and the children, while the father would not suffer significant prejudice from its continuation.

“As I see it, there is no prejudice that the applicant (father) will suffer if the subpoena is not set aside. While on the other hand, setting aside the subpoena will have deleterious effects on the first respondent (mother) and the children,” he said.

The father’s application was dismissed.

sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za

IOL News

Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel. 

Source link